Quality And Profits: Virtual Learning Environment and Real Student Engagement
“Students
At the Heart of Higher Education”
At the time of
writing, the Higher Education system in the UK is at the cusp of a
revolutionary change. The change, brought about by a mixture of financial
necessity and ideological persuasion of the government in power, is designed to
ensure ‘substantially more money will flow via students and less via HEFCE’
(Willetts, 2011). The Ministers claim that this will ‘reduce central political
control, put more power in the hands of consumers and promote innovative
delivery methods’ (Willetts, 2011). This market-based and consumption-driven
system has been presented with the claim that this will put ‘students at the
heart of Higher Education’.
Whether or not
the new system will create a better Higher Education system is still being
debated. However, highlighting students as the primary beneficiary of the
Higher Education system, rather than the communities or the nation, imply a
shift of emphasis and has called for new discussions and initiatives. With the
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) embarking on the development of a new UK Code of
Practice on Student Engagement, due to be published in June 2012, and Higher
Education Academy (HEA) presenting a conference track on “Changing and
developing practice in student engagement” in HEA Annual Conference 2011,
enhancing student engagement is firmly on the agenda of Higher Education
leaders in the UK. It is also suggested that the role of students may undergo a
subtle shift as the funding regime changes, and they may essentially become
‘co-developers’ and ‘co-creators’ of their educational experience and become
very much ‘engaged’ in their programme of studies (Beaumont Kerridge, 2010,
cited in Eade, 2011).
However, as
Lewis (2011) indicates, “there is not a shared understanding of what this term
means”. Trowler and Trowler (2010) also highlight the absence of a clear
definition of “student engagement” and the lack of evidence that the activities
under the umbrella do actually contribute to “real enagement”. Krause (2005)
suggests that engagement has become a catch-all term in Higher Education
covering a compendium of behaviour characterizing students, who are said to be
more involved with their university community than their less engaged peers. A
recent research commissioned by the HEA surveys various aspects of student engagement
across different Business Schools in the UK (Eade, 2011) and comes up with a
list of areas or initiatives undertaken to improve engagement:
·
Innovation in terms of
delivery, in particular teaching learning and assessment
·
Changes made to the curriculum
to encourage “engagement”
·
Student retention and
transition – particularly the first year
·
Reflective Practice
·
Student Representation
·
Student Support Systems
·
Extra-curricular activities
·
Student involvement in the
development of curriculum
·
Student surveys
In recent times,
many institutions worldwide has introduced Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs)
in supporting learning for their campus-based students. While different
institutions use and implement VLEs differently, enhanced student engagement
feature as an important objective, apart from dissemination of information and
sharing of learning content, of the VLE. However, while there has been
considerable research in the area of student engagement as well as various
aspects of Online Learning, exploration of VLE’s impact on student engagement
remains limited (Coates, 2005). This paper attempts to survey the literature in
the area and discover some of the issues involved.
Students’ time
on task and their willingness to participate in activities is suggested as the
definition of engagement (Stovall, 2003). However, definitions such as this
perhaps needed further clarification plodded by the practicalities of the
University life (as encapsulated memorably by Clark Kerr’s definition of three
priorities – ‘sex for students, parking for faculty and athletics for the
alumni’). Krause and Coates (2008) defines engagement as the ‘quality of effort
students themselves devote to educationally purposeful activities that
contribute directly to desired outcomes’. Chen et al (2008) views engagement as
‘the degree to which learners are engaged with their educational activities and
that engagement is positively linked to a host of desired outcomes, including
high grades, student satisfaction and perseverance.
Beer (2010)
cites Hamish Coates’ following definition as the ‘aggregation of the
literature’: “Engagement is seen to comprise active and collaborative learning,
participation in challenging academic activities, formative communication with
academic staff, involvement in enriching educational experiences, and feeling
legitimated and supported by the university learning communities”. (Coates,
2007)
Beer (2010) also
cites the Seven Principles Framework by Chickering and Gamson (1987), which was
used to design aspects of the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement in
2009. This seven principles framework of good practice in undergraduate
education represents a philosophy of student engagement (Puzziferr-Schnitzer,
2005) and Beer (2010) presents an alignment of the two definitions as
represented in the following table:
Elements of Coates’ (2007) definition of engagement
|
Chickering
and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles of good
practice in undergraduate education
|
Active and collaborative learning
|
2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation
among students; 3. Uses active learning techniques
|
Formative communication with academic
staff
|
1. Encourages contacts between students
and faculty
|
Involvement in enriching educational
experiences
|
5. Emphasizing time on task; 6.
Communicates high expectations
|
Feeling legitimated and supported by
university learning communities
|
1. Encourages contact between students
and faculty; 2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students;
4. Gives prompt feedback.
|
(Reproduced from Beer, 2010)
Environment
and Engagement
Environments of
teaching and learning are expected to play a significant role in creating
engagement, as they may facilitate learning activities, or at the other end of
the scale, may potentially distract efforts. Dunn and Dunn (1979, cited in
Fulton, 1988) states:
“Based on observations, interviews and experimental studies
conducted since 1967, it has become apparent that regardless of their age,
ability, socio-economic status, or achievement level, individuals respond
uniquely to their immediate environment.”
It is indeed
meant to be a two way relationship, as Fitt(1974) suggests based on her
qualitative studies: “Any spatial transaction between an individual and his
environment depends on two variables: The individual’s idiosyncratic use of
space and the environment’s structuring.”
Various aspects
of physical learning environments, including seating arrangements (Becker et
al, 1973; Koneya 1976), effects of windows (Karmel, 1965) and outdoor settings
(Mandel et al, 1980), were well researched. It was generally agreed that in a
setting not in alignment with the learning, like a noisy space for music classes,
a significant part of students’ and tutors’ efforts may be devoted to
neutralizing the distractions, and as a consequence, may proportionately reduce
their ability to engage in tasks towards the desired outcomes. However, it is
also noted, as Becker et al(1973) observed in their study on classroom seating
arrangements, “that simply altering the physical structure, without an
accompanying change in the social structure, will not produce real change”.
At this point,
it is important to note that the ‘Environment’ may mean more than just the
physical setting of the classroom. As Hiemstra(1991a) puts it : “A learning
environment is all of the physical surroundings, psychological or emotional
conditions, and social or cultural influences affecting the growth and
development of an adult engaged in an educational enterprise”. Tagiuri(1968)
has presented a taxonomy of environmental climate components, composed of
ecology (building on classroom characteristics), milieu (individual’s
characteristics), social system (interpersonal or group-patterned
relationships) and culture (beliefs, values and expectations). (Cited in
Hiemstra, 1991a)
To understand
how environments may affect student engagement, one may adopt what David(1979)
suggested as the functional approach, in which physical features and social and
curricular concerns are to interact. At this point, one also needs to accept
Sommer’s observations that an ‘ideal study environment’ is an illusion and “no
single study situation can satisfy the needs of extroverts and introverts, lone
and group studiers.. What is needed is a variety of study situations that can
appeal to the students with particular interests” (Sommer, 1970).
Following this
approach, Weinstein(1981) called for ‘environmental competence’ in teachers and
instructional designers, an awareness of the physical environment and its
impact, and an ability to change the environment to suit the educational
purposes. (Cited in Fulton, 1988). Hiemstra(1991b) made some early suggestions
towards how educators can commit to a new practice for developing learner
participation and engagement, including giving control to the learners about
how and where they learn, incorporating Microcomputer technology, ongoing
‘audit’ of the environment, collaborative approach towards the learners, and
being proactive and making personal commitment to bring in change when needed.
Engagement and Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)
Virtual Learning
Environment (VLE), a term somewhat interchangeably with Learning Management
System (LMS), is defined by Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC 2000) as
a software system ‘in which learners and tutors participate in “on-line”
interactions of various kinds, including on-line learning”. More broadly, an
LMS is defined by Whatis.com as ‘A software application or Web-based technology
used to plan, implement and assess a specific learning process. Typically, a
learning management system provides an instructor with a way to create and
deliver content, monitor student participation, and assess student performance.
A learning management system may also provide students with the ability to use
interactive features such as threaded discussions, video conferencing and
discussion forums’. (Weller, 2007)
While the two
terms, VLE and LMS, are coined to mean similar things and used interchangeably,
the term VLE connotes a certain intent to see the software as an ‘environment’,
presumably an alternative to the ‘physical’ one (hence, ‘virtual’). This
denotes a quantum leap from Hiemstra’s (1991b) intention to enrich the learning
environment with careful integration of microcomputer technology, which is all
but natural given the prevalence of computer applications in many other fields.
However, at the same time, it is possible to see VLEs as the realization of
many of the suggestions made by Hiemstra and his colleagues: It distributes the
learning environment over space and time (Cross, 2009), allowing the learners
greater flexibility in terms of when and where to learn. However, given their
broad capability and impact on students’ learning experiences (not to mention
prevalence of Virtual Universities powered by VLEs), it is only logical to
treat these software programmes as a self-contained environment, rather than a
tool to be integrated into some broader framework.
Coates (2005)
assesses the VLE to have the capability to meet his requirements of student
engagement, as:
“LMSs have the capacity to influence how students engage with their
study and to change collaboration, communication and access to learning
materials. LMSs enrich student learning by offering access to a greater range
of interactive resources, making course contents more cognitively accessible,
providing automated and adaptive forms of assessment, and developing a
student’s technology literacy. Asynchronous online tools allow students to
interact with learning materials, their peers and the entire university in ways
not bound by time or place”.
In a follow-up
article to Chickering and Gamson’s work on good practices in undergraduate
education, Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) argued that new communication and
information technology by itself would not lead to educational achievement.
Instead, Ehrmann (2004) suggested that technology should be used by educators
as a catalyst to create student success. In a sense, this is reminiscent of
Weinstein’s call for ‘environmental competence’, made in a different era for a
different kind of environment.
The utility of
information technology usage in enhancing student engagement has been
researched extensively. Chen et al (2010) cites Robinson and Hullinger (2008)
who found ‘that asynchronous instructional technology allows learners more time
to think critically and reflectively, which in turn stimulates higher order
thinking such as analysis, synthesis, judgment and application of knowledge’;
Duderstadt et al(2002) stated, “When implemented through active, inquiry based
learning pedagogies, online learning can stimulate students to use higher order
skills such as problem solving, collaboration and stimulation”. Thurmond and
Wambach (2004, cited by Chen et al, 2009) observes that the students taking
online courses are expected to work collaboratively, which is an important
component of student engagement, and that ‘collaborative components have been
integrated into most web-based course designs’. Besides, Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991) suggest that a key factor in student engagement is the
communication with teachers outside the classroom: Kennedy (2000) claims that
this is precisely what the ‘chat’ feature in online technologies, and
distribution of student-teacher interaction over time and space may be able to
achieve.
Using the VLE to enhance Student Engagement
Coates (2007)
suggests four identified styles of student engagement, as either intensive,
collaborative, independent or passive. These styles are based on definition of
social and academic dimensions of student engagement, namely:
Intense - Above Norm Social Engagement, Above Norm Academic Engagement
Collaborative - Above Norm Social Engagement, Below Norm Academic Engagement
Independent - Below Norm Social Engagement, Above Norm Academic Engagement
Passive - Below Norm Social Engagement, Below Norm Academic Engagement
Students
reporting an intense form of engagement use the campus facilities, social life
and online learning facilities, and they do it for both academic and social
purposes. The independent style students often use the online engagement to
legitimize and contextualize their learning activities, but are unlikely to
participate in collaboration or social interactions. These students tend to
view themselves as members of a supportive learning community, but are less
likely to work collaboratively or participate in extra-curricular activities.
The collaborative engagement style indicate that these students use the online
platforms and general campus-based activities to connect and collaborate with
other students, more with social than the academic purpose in mind. The passive
style students, however, are unlikely to use the online or campus facilities
altogether.
Coates (2007)
suggests that identifying the students in this Engagement style typography may
help the institutions to tailor and coordinate their online and campus-based
activities. This may help the institution to move beyond the ‘accidental
pedagogy’ that Morgan(2003) identified most usage of VLEs with. This may also
help the institutions to build ‘broad community support and stimulation’ for
individual learners through the VLE. They may also provide ‘opportunities to
have extra and richer conversation with staff, participate in a greater range
of complimentary activities, and, in particular, to engage in more
collaborative activities with their peers’. Interestingly, this study also
points out that the students don’t see certain core educational experiences as
interchangeable, and therefore the online and general scales show little
correlation. This prompts the suggestion that while VLEs may be used to enhance
student engagement in the campus, this should not be seen as an alternative to
core activities, like tutor support.
Exploring The Issues
However, despite
the impressive range of capabilities of a modern VLE, there is no ‘out of the
box’ solution and educators must actively engage in designing the environment
to achieve the desired outcome. Careful consideration must be given to many
different items to ensure the VLE is fit for purpose. Cross (2009) makes this
observation about physical learning environments, which may be equally valid
for a VLE: “At best, individual teachers are in a position to establish basic
requirements, and then tailor the environment precisely to meet the needs to
learning and learners. At worst, there is an expectation that all participants
should put up with inappropriate facilities and make do with whatever happens
to be provided”.
While VLEs offer
a range of technical possibilities, for an individual tutor, it is often
technologically challenging. Given the economies of scale for purchase and
support, as well as problems of data sharing between different software
systems, the tutors often have to work within an institutionally mandated VLE rather
than being able to create something, which may suit their pedagogic
requirements. Vosko (1985), while studying proxemics of seating arrangements
and distance zones, were startled by the finding that even when adults saw a
need for change in their immediate physical environment, they seldom, if ever,
initiated any such change: Both the teachers and the learners perceived the
responsibility of the change in the physical environment to be that of the
administrators. With the increased level of complexity involved in setting up a
VLE, it is often more challenging to persuade the tutors to carry out
continuous ‘environment audit’ that Vosko ended up suggesting.
Also, VLEs are
also often seen as cost saving mechanisms by institutional decision makers, and
most implementation of VLEs are accompanied by reduction of other resource
provisions. However, some of these may hinder student engagement: For example,
if one is to assume that tutor time can be reduced as the VLE is introduced and
some of the teaching can become asynchronous, this will reduce the online
interactions (due to time constraints of the tutor).
It is also
important to keep in mind that the VLE effectively alters the education
process, even when used in a limited context. Salmon (2002) observed that ‘VLEs
are NOT neutral. Like any technology they embed underlying values about
teaching and learning, promote certain affordances and reduce other choices”.
‘Affordances’ are social capabilities technological qualities enable (Byam,
2010) and was memorably encapsulated in McLuhan’s famous ‘the medium is the
message’ coinage. Often, this change in the educational process is not fully
appreciated by the tutors and the institutions, and not embedded in pedagogic
and other engagement efforts.
Lee (2001)
suggested that with the implementation of ‘web-enhanced learning’, four
distinct learner types may emerge, each with a different combination of levels
of use and academic performance:
Model Students: High usage
and performance. Students are in alignment with tutor intentions, and know
what’s expected of them: Consequently, they make the best use of the available
resources.
Traditionalists: Low usage
but high performance. These students stick to face to face interaction and
print-based study. They are not significantly disadvantaged by the low use of
VLE and object to any linkage between VLE usage and academic performance. This
group suffers if the institution moves more towards the distance learning
model.
Geeks: High use but low
performance. There is mismatch between students’ and tutors’ intents: The
students may simply see the VLE as a technology tool or communication platform,
and not engage with course content.
The Disengaged: Low use
and performance. These students don’t use the VLE and are increasingly
disengaged if the tutors use the VLE as a key component in teaching and
learning: Consequently, they fail to make the grades.
In a study
titled ‘Virtual Learning Environments – help or hindrance for the disengaged
students?’, Alice Maltby and Sarah Mackie (Maltby et al, 2009) uses Lee’s
framework to study the VLE usage and academic performance of a number of
students and conclude that “online behaviour patterns of potentially ‘at risk’
students are formed surprisingly early in their university life”, thereby
potentially allowing corrective action to be taken. However, the researchers
admit various ethical and privacy issues that VLE tracking may raise, and
limitations of the methods for persistent usage and practical implementation.
Conclusion
In summary,
while implementation of the VLE opens up a range of technological possibilities
to enhance student engagement, it is critical that careful consideration is
employed in choosing and implementing these features or possibilities. A
successful implementation of VLE should involve a careful planning of
institutional priorities, adequate resourcing and appropriate instructional
design keeping in mind the features and possibilities. Weller (2007) refers to
them as ‘patterns’, following the structural clues that architects tend to
leave to indicate the potential and intended usage of space and built
environment. This is indeed appropriate:
Just like the built environment, a VLE may not be taken for granted, but should
be carefully designed to facilitate real student engagement.
References
Baym, N (2010),
Personal Connections in the Digital Age, Polity, Malden, USA.
Becker, F.,
Sommer, R., Bee, J., and Oxley, B. (1973), College Classroom Ecology,
Sociometry, 36 (4), pp 514 – 525.
Beer, C (2010),
Online Student Engagement, from
http://beerc.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/online-student-engagement/
Chen, P D,
Lambert, A D and Guidry, K R (2010), Engaging Online Learners: The Impact of
Web-based Learning Technology on college student engagement, Computers and
Education, 54 (2010), pp 1222 – 1232.
Chickering, A W
and Gamson, Z F (1987), Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate
Education, AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), pp 3 – 7.
Chickering, A W
and Ehrmann, S C (1996), Implementing the seven principles: Technology as
lever, AAHE Bulletin (October), pp 3 – 6.
Clark, B R and
Trow, M (1966), The Organizational Context, in Newcomb, T M and Wilson, E K
(eds), College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects of Research, Aldine,
Chicago, USA.
Coates, H
(2005), Leveraging LMSs to Enhance Campus-Based Student Engagement, Educause
Quarterly, 2005 (1), pp 66 – 68.
Coates, H
(2007), A model of online and general campus-based student engagement,
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32 (2), pp 121 – 141.
Cross, S (2009),
Adult Teaching and Learning: Developing Your Practice, McGraw-Hill Education,
Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK.
David, T.
(1979), Students’ and Teachers’ Reaction to Classroom Environment, Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Chicago.
Duderstadt, J.,
Atkins, D., and Houweling, D., (2002), Higher Education in the Digital Age:
Technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities,
Praeger, Westport, CT, USA.
Dunn, R and
Dunn, K (1979), Learning Styles/Teaching Styles: Should they..Can They.. be
matched?, Educational Leadership, 36 (4), pp 238 – 244.
Eade, B (2011),
A Critical Review of Contemporary Practice: Student Engagement, Higher
Education Academy Research Paper, Higher Education Academy, UK
Ehrmann, S
C(2004), Beyond Computer Literacy: Implications of Technology for the content
of a college education, Liberal Education, 90 (4), pp 6 – 13.
Fitt, S (1974),
The individual and his environment, School Review, 82 (4), pp 617 – 620.
Fulton, R
(1988), An Overview of the research on physical learning environments, Paper
presented in Montana State University, August 1988, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED298638&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED298638
Hiemstra, R
(1991a), Aspects of Effective Learning Environments, in New Directions in Adult
and Continuing Education, 50 (July 1991): pp 5 - 12.
Hiemstra, R
(1991b), Toward Building A More Effective Learning Environment, in New
Directions in Adult and Continuing Education, 50 (July 1991): pp 93 – 97.
JISC (Joint
Information Systems Committee) (2000) Circular 7/00: MLEs in further education:
progress report. JISC 1 July 2000. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=news_circular_7_00
Karmel, L.
(1965), Effects of Windowless Classroom Environment on High School Students,
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 20, pp 277 – 278.
Koneya, M
(1976), Location and Interaction in Row and Column Sitting Arrangements,
Environment and Behaviour, 8 (2), pp 153 – 169.
Krause, K
L(2005), Understanding and Promoting Student Engagement in University Learning
Communities, Paper presented at the James Cook University Symposium, Sharing
Scholarship in Learning and Teaching: Engaging Students, James Cook University,
Townsvillle.
Kennedy, C
(2000), Implications for New Pedagogy in Higher Education: Can Online
Technology Enhance Student Engagement and Learning? [Electronic Version], from
Krause, K L and
Coates, H (2008), Students’ engagement in First Year University, Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (5), pp 493 – 505.
Lee, M G (2001),
Profiling Students’ Adaptation Styles in Web-based Learning, Computers and
Education, 36 (2), p 121 – 132.
Lewis, E (2011),
Creating an Integrated Picture of Student Engagement across Scottish Higher and
Further Education Sectors, Higher Education Academy Research Paper, Higher
Education Academy, UK
(http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/projects/detail/StudentEngagement_ResearchBid2011_sparqs)
Maltby, A and
Mackie, S (2009), Virtual Learning Environments – help or hindrance for the
‘disengaged’ student? ALT-J, 17 (1), pp 49 – 62
Mandel, D.,
Baron, R. and Fisher, J. (1980), Room utilization and dimensions of density,
Environment and Behaviour, 12 (3), pp 308 -319.
Morgan, G
(2003), Faculty Use of Course Management Systems, Educause Centre for Applied
Research, Colorado, USA.
Pascarella, E T
and Terenzini, P T (1991) How College Affects Students, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA, USA.
Puzziferr-Schnitzer, M (2005), Managing
Virtual Adjunct Faculty: Applying Seven Principles of Good Practice, Paper
presented at the Distance Learning Administration, 2005, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/schnitzer82.htm
Robinson, C C and Hullinger, H (2008), New
Benchmarks in Higher Education: Student Engagement in Online Learning, Journal
of Education for Business, 84 (2), pp 101 – 108.
Salmon, G (2002), Wrap Speed or Snail’s
Pace? Pathways Into The Future of E-Learning Land. Keynote presented at the
Virtual Learning Conference, June 24, Bristol, UK.
Sommer, R.
(1970), Ecology of Study Areas, Environment and Behaviour, 2 (3), pp 271 – 280.
Stovall, I
(2003), Engagement and Online Learning, UIS Community Practice for E-Learning,
Accessed January 2012 (http://www.powershow.com/view/b37f3-MDY5M/Engagement_and_Online_Learning_flash_ppt_presentation)
Thurmond, V and
Wambach, K (2004), Understanding interactions in Distance Education: A review
of literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning, 1, pp 9 – 33.
Trowler, V and Trowler, P (2010) Student
Engagement Evidence Summary, Higher Education Academy Research Paper, Higher
Education Academy, UK (http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/studentengagement/Research_and_evidence_base_for_student_engagement)
Vosko, R (1985),
The reactions of adult learners to selected instructional environments,
Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3519A.
Weinstein, C
(1981), Classroom Design as an External Condition for Learning, in Educational
Technology, 21 (8), pp 12 – 19.
Weller, M
(2007), Virtual Learning Environments: Using, Choosing and Developing Your VLE,
Routledge, London, UK.
Willetts, D
(2011), Putting Students at the Heart of Higher Education, in Blue Skies: New
Thinking About the Future of Higher Education, Pearson Centre for Policy and
Learning, London, UK
Comments