Category: Online Learning

  • ‘It’s different when they’re in their office’: the disconnect in student perceptions of academic meetings

    ‘It’s different when they’re in their office’: the disconnect in student perceptions of academic meetings

    by Stacey Mottershaw and Anna Viragos

    As we approach the five-year anniversary of the closure of UK university campuses for the Covid-19 pandemic, we thought it might be interesting and timely to reflect on the way that the sector adapted to educational delivery, and which innovations remain as part of our new normal.

    One key aspect of educational delivery which has remained to varying extents across the sector is the move to online student meetings. This includes meetings for academic personal tutorials, dissertation supervisions and other one-to-one meetings between students and staff. The Covid-19 lockdowns necessitated the use of online meetings as the only available option during this time. However, even post-lockdown, students and staff have continued to request online meetings, for reasons such as flexibility, privacy and sustainability.

    To explore this further, we conducted a small mixed-methods study with students from Leeds University Business School to consider their preferences for online or in-person meetings, utilising a faculty-wide survey for breadth and short semi-structured interviews for depth.

    We designed a questionnaire including questions on demographic (eg gender, home/international, whether they have caring responsibilities) and situational questions regarding their preference for face-to-face only, hybrid, or online meetings. We also included some questions around the ‘Big Five’ personality traits, to better understand factors that influence preferences.  We then distributed this online questionnaire, using the Qualtrics questionnaire software.

    Based on our findings, 15% of respondents preferred face-to-face only, 31% online only, with the remaining 54% preferring to have the option of either face-to-face or online.

    We also found that international students had a stronger preference for online meetings compared to non-international students. Whilst we had a relatively small sample of students on the Plus Programme (our institutional programme targeted to under-represented students); they had a stronger preference for in-person meetings. In terms of the Big Five traits, this student sample was highest on agreeableness and conscientiousness, and lowest on extroversion.

    In addition to the questionnaire, we ran seven one-to-one interviews with students from a mix of second year, the year in industry and final year, who had all experienced a mix of both online and face-to-face meetings throughout their studies.

    In reviewing the data, we identified five core themes of student preferences around meeting modes:

    • Connection and communication: Participants felt that the type of meeting affected connection and communication, with in-person meetings feeling more authentic.
    • Privacy/space: Participants felt that the type of meeting was influenced by factors including their access to private space, either at home or on campus.
    • Confidence: Some participants felt that the type of meeting could affect how confident they would feel in interactions with staff, with online meetings in their own environment feeling more comfortable than in spaces on campus.
    • Time: Participants discussed the amount of time that they had for each type of meeting, with online meetings deemed to be more efficient, due to the absence of travel time.
    • Flexibility: Participants demonstrated a strong preference for flexibility, in that they value having a choice over how to meet, rather than a meeting mode being imposed upon them.

    Through cross-examination of the core themes, we also identified something akin to a meta-theme, that is a ‘theme which acquire[s] meaning through the systematic co-occurrence of two or more other themes’ (Armborst, 2017 p1). We termed this meta-theme ‘The Disconnect’, as across each of the core themes there seemed to be a disconnect between student expectations of APT and what is typically provided, which ties in with existing literature (Calabrese et al, 2022).

    For example, one participant suggested that:

    It’s different when they’re in their office like popping there and asking a question for the lecture or even like the tutorials rather than having to e-mail or like go on a call [which] feels more formal.

    Whilst this comment seems to lean more towards other types of academic teaching (eg module leadership, lecture delivery or seminar facilitation), it can also translate to availability of staff more broadly. The comment suggests that students might expect staff to be available to them, on site, as and when they are needed. Yet in reality, it is unlikely that outside of set office hours academic staff will be available to answer ad hoc questions given their other commitments and particularly given the increased proportion of staff regularly working from home since the pandemic. This perspective also seems to contradict the perception that staff are much more available now than ever before, due to the prevalence of communications administered via email and online chat and meeting tools such as MS Teams. Staff may feel that they are more available as online communication methods increase in availability and use, but if students do not want ‘formal’ online options or prefer ad hoc on-site provision, then there may be a disconnect between student expectations and delivery, with all stakeholders feeling short-changed by the reality.

    Another disconnect between expectations and reality became apparent when another participant commented:

    […] online it was more rushed because you have the 30 minutes and you see the time going down and in the Zoom you will see like you have 4 minutes left to talk and then you’re rushing it over to finish it.

    Whilst this clearly relates to the core theme of time, it also seemed to be correlated with participant understanding of staff roles. It is difficult to understand how the time limitation for online and in-person meetings is different when the meetings are of the same duration, except that in the case of in-person meetings the student may be less aware of timings, due to not having the time physically visible on the screen in front of them. This might be reflected in the student-staff dynamic, where managing online meetings might be seen to be a joint and equal endeavour, with the responsibility for managing in-person meetings being skewed towards the staff member. Whilst it can be argued that staff should take responsibility for managing the meeting, in a time of increased narratives around student-led tutoring, it may be worth exploring the possible knock-on effects of students passively allowing the meeting to happen, rather than actively owning the meeting.

    Final thoughts

    A limitation of this study was the low response rate. At the point of dissemination, there were approximately 2,000 students in our faculty. However, we received just 198 survey responses (9.9%), and only seven people took part in the interviews, despite repeated calls for participants and generous incentives. Although this was a smaller sample than we had hoped for, we are confident that our study makes a timely and relevant contribution to discussions around delivery of APT, both within our faculty and beyond.

    As a starting point, future research could seek to generate responses from a broader pool of participants, through both a quantitative survey and qualitative methods. Based on our findings, there may also be scope for further research exploring student expectations of staff roles, and how these match to institutional offerings across the sector. Ultimately, universities need to do more to investigate and understand student preferences for educational delivery, balancing this alongside pedagogical justifications and staff circumstances.

    Stacey Mottershaw is an Associate Professor (Teaching and Scholarship) at Leeds University Business School and an EdD candidate at the University of Sheffield. Her research predominantly seeks to understand the needs of marginalised groups in higher education, with a particular focus on equitable and socially just career development. 

    Dr Anna Viragos is an Associate Professor in Organizational Psychology at Leeds University Business School, and a Chartered Psychologist of the BPS. Her research focuses on a variety of topics such as stress and wellbeing, creativity, and job design.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Quality Matters Training – Hot Lunch Tray

    Quality Matters Training – Hot Lunch Tray

    In May 2017 I completed Quality Matters Reviewer training. I completed it as part of a subscription my K12 district purchased and was the QM Coordinator for that district 2017-2022.It has been a touchstone for me as I lean into online education.

    Context

    At the time of my initial training, I was an in-person teacher trainer and professional developer working in the Technology Department. I specifically worked with classroom teachers to blend their content online the training was transformational. I have now experienced deep looks at online content and now see how extensive, how detailed a complete course review is. I realize now, I have always been starting the online content shift and never finishing it.

    Since my initial training, the QM Rubric(s) and the mindset shift has meant different things to me.

    Employment Opportunities

    Since completing the training I have added many experiences to my resume. I have been paid for all of these experiences and encourage anyone who can to become a QM certified reviewer. I teacher at two different colleges in instructional designer/technologist courses. I have contracted to create complete online courses for adult professional learning courses. I have contracted to author lectures for online courses based on course and modules objectives. I have contracted to “pre-review” course before colleges submit them for QM Certification. I contract directly with Quality Matters to complete course reviews. And I have implemented a learning management system (LMS) from the request for proposal (RFP) through a two year road map.

    Not all of these opportunities were because of my certification, but also the perspective it provided me.

    Perspective

    Thinking about online course content through the lens of the QM rubric helps me understand what I am and what I should be experiencing in on online course.

    Personally, my oldest son transitioned to an online high school in his sophomore year for his unique scheduling needs. Considering the QM rubric, his courses are what they should be; considering what I used to do in my in-person classroom I found the course experience less than…. but this helped me see what is the school learning versus what is the experience learning he has available to him.

    Now when I look at online courses I intuitively understand – and am still explaining to many K12 classroom teacher – the academic content is distilled to the most straightforward content and learner experiences only. When a in-person classroom teacher tells me “that isn’t real school” I think to myself, but it is what you say you want to do.

    In my son’s situation, school distilled down to the required learning allows he to be immersed in his in-person real world learning.

    Professional Learning

    In 2021, I guided our longest standing K12 online instructors in the district (Foreign Languages & Physical Education) through a Quality Matters self-review. The self-review differs from a QM review, but in this case we used the opportunity to meet as a professional learning community (PLC) to compare the QM rubric to the most mature online offering. This course had been revised over a number of years. When we applied the rubric to the course we discussed many instructor dispositions and assumptions. These discussions generated a dialogue of improvement in content creation, moving the course into alignment with the rubric. The most interesting part of the process was to listen to these course creators and practitioners discussing the way the students interacted with the content.

    As I have reviewed and created online courses I have increased my capacity to view courses from the perspective of author, teacher, and learner. I would recommend this activity to any PLC involved with online courses.

    Virtual Vanguard Homepage

    I woudl encourage all educators to consider if either a Quality Matters K12 or Higher Education reviewer course or certification is right for you.

    Source link

  • How online learning can help tackle global injustices

    How online learning can help tackle global injustices

    by Sam Spiegel

    How can online learning programmes help tackle systemic global injustices with creative pedagogies? How can universities build effective educational environments and pedagogies to support critical thinking and vigorously challenge contemporary forms of racism, colonialism and inequity?

    These are some of the questions I have reflected on over the past almost 14 years of teaching at the University of Edinburgh. In 2011, I embarked with colleagues at the School of Social and Political Science to develop our school’s first fully online distance learning MSc postgraduate programmes, partnering with an interdisciplinary team spanning the three Colleges  of the University to co-create and co-teach the MSc in Global Challenges. Addressing global development, health and environmental inequalities, with case studies spanning an array of countries, this programme had students from all over the world. The insights and trajectories of our students have been deeply inspirational – many of our students have gone on to do PhDs, work with United Nations organisations, embassies, non-governmental and humanitarian organisations and work in other kinds of practitioner and research careers. In this blog I reflect on the philosophy of the teaching and learning approach we have nurtured – and associated critical conversations about pedagogy.

    We had support from a Principal’s Teaching Award (PTAS) to explore student learning experiences and reflect on our teaching practices, and in 2016 we published an article: ‘Decolonising online development studies? Emancipatory aspirations and critical reflections–a case study’. At the time, it was one of the few critical pedagogy studies to think through ‘international development’ teaching and the risks of replicating colonial logics in online learning modalities (and how to try to counter these). It proposed a critical framework for analysis that took into account barriers to social inclusivity – including the politics of language – that shaped participation dynamics in the programme. It also considered debates regarding critical development course content, rethinking possibilities for bridging counter-hegemonic development scholarship with practice-oriented approaches in a range of social contexts. Our analysis unpacked tensions in tackling intertwined institutional and pedagogic dilemmas for an agenda towards decolonising online development studies, positioning decolonisation as a necessarily unsettling and contested process that calls for greater self-reflexivity.

    Some years ago online learning initiatives were treated with suspicion as a technology craze that could not truly build effective communities of critical learners. This is no longer the case, generally speaking. Our online students have carved out sophisticated learning paths while interacting with ambitious courses – sometimes in live discussions and sometimes in asynchronous discussions that built incredible communities of practice. But there are important online learning-specific pedagogic points to keep in mind, as course instructors craft and adapt approaches to support individual and group learning.

    One is the risk of re-entrenching problematic dynamics of imperial knowledge production, even when intentions are to do exactly the opposite. There is a need to ensure that online learning platforms grapple with colonial legacies and tendencies – including biases that are easily replicable in virtual technology platforms. It is increasingly recognised that ‘decolonising’ is not simply a matter of ‘bringing in’ authors from Global South countries in reading lists. It is also a matter of ensuring that the underpinning pedagogies, assignments, and learning strategies themselves tackle systemic biases that have often shaped the field of ‘international development’ – and doing so from the outset. This may mean inviting students into at-times uncomfortable conversations about ways of understanding histories of dispossession, or ways of thinking about and governing societies; and ensuring that early course activities trouble assumptions – including about what ‘development’ is/means to different people and whose values are prioritised or overlooked. Some students might not normally read the writings of those who fought during liberation wars against colonialism, for example, but might find such readings different and transformative. There are a range of other possibilities, too, from changing the way that case studies are framed – for example, starting with stories of heavily oppressed peoples instead of starting with the technocratic logics of United Nations and government reports.

    Despite global talk of ‘decolonisation,’ there has been a tendency for globally renowned development academics from wealthy countries to dominate reading lists. We have tried in our courses to challenge this – and ensure that activity-focused coursework and online case studies challenge hegemonic assumptions in mainstream policy literature and development discourse. Some of the reflections on our pedagogy were also discussed in a wider influential review article by Shahjahan et al (2022) entitled ‘”Decolonizing” curriculum and pedagogy: A comparative review across disciplines and global higher education contexts’, which notes that ‘decolonization’ has been very differently treated by different educators. Our pedagogy work has also been part of a wider conversation in the scholarly literature on how “precautions need to be taken when incorporating non-Western knowledges into Western universities to avoid mishearing, misrepresenting, exploiting, and decontextualizing them” (Lau and Mendes, 2024; see also Spiegel et al, 2024).

    Relatedly, there is a need to be cautious of ideas about “transfer of knowledge” and instead to embrace values built on reciprocal sharing of knowledge in educational practices (see also Parmentier, 2023). Furthermore, attempts at decolonising development education requires attention to the link between learning strategy and wider institutional practices, including heeding inequities in admissions processes and language barriers in higher education. Our work in developing new online learning pedagogies is just part of the story; we have also been interacting closely with university admissions offices on strengthening approaches to make admissions more inclusive. This has included greater recognition of practitioner qualifications and also, significantly, some modifications in how English language testing requirements were addressed in some of the countries affected. This was especially important in contexts where applicants had demonstrable English language proof, from institutional and/or university experiences, but lived far from test centres and could not afford testing.

    Our article ‘Decolonising Online Development Studies?’ had a question mark in the title, alluding to the ambiguity of interpretation and the uncertainties that may play out over time. It was cited in other PTAS-awarded studies led by other staff members at UoE, supporting further analysis of specific techniques for building online learning communities (see Wood et al, 2021) How these ideas are to be taken forward is an ethically important conversation that relates to the very core of what education seeks to do, requiring ongoing attention to the interplay of values, philosophies, curricula and teaching techniques.

    Dr Sam Spiegel is the director of the Global Challenges MSc programme at the University of Edinburgh, where he serves as the Deputy Director of Research for Knowledge Exchange and Impact at the School of Social and Political Science. He is also a senior lecturer at the Centre of African Studies and has published extensively with colleagues in Zimbabwe and in other regions of the world on migration, displacement, borders, critical pedagogy and social change.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Making Online Learning More Engaging in Higher Education – Edutechniques

    Making Online Learning More Engaging in Higher Education – Edutechniques

    With my recent work in Maynooth University (MU) in Ireland and my ten years of refining and teaching the courses we offer in the MAET program at Michigan State University (MSU), Ive been pontificating and procrastinating on what is current state of play with making more engaging online content in the higher education realm.

    Using Multiple Platforms for Collaboration/Communication

    At MSU we utilise Slack alongside our Brightspace D2L learning platform. This is the latest in a long line of platforms we have added to encourage collaboration and communication amongst our students. Discussion forums on LMS are by default….not the best..and not conducive to authentic engagement. We have found with Slack that engagement is up due to the interface and the fact that Slack has an app. Threads are logical and embedding multimedia works well. At Maynooth University, I taught the blended course TL517 Digital Technology in Higher Education which was delivered in Moodle, the old course framework had a weekly requirement to post to Moodle. I mixed it up a bit by incorporating live Microsoft Team activities along with collaborative Padlets. Padlet gave the students a different visual approach to communicating their thoughts and collaborating with others. The use of breakout rooms in Microsoft Teams gave the students the opportunity to navigate smaller groups in socially constructing knowledge and understanding.

    MORE INTERACTIVE CONTENT

    Quite logical and predictable, right? However, from my time in MU, the majority of online learning courses are merely substitutions of the analog courses that were delivered within the university walls. Working with lecturers to comb through their content to pinpoint areas that may become more interactive with technology is a very rewarding process. This process might be framed by the ABC protocols or just evolve organically through conversations.

    HUMANISE THE PROCESS

    When I am teaching an online course I always start with creating a video introducing myself and detail my professional and personal history. I also tell the students about my hobbies and interests. Seeing my face and hearing my voice always gives a human element to a potentially impersonal first impressions of an online course. It is also important to empathise with students online and realise the stress and pressures of real life that students are going through. Being flexible and empathetic with deadlines (to a certain degree) is greatly appreciated.

    CONSISTENT WORD-OLOGY

    When sorting out a course layout I like to organise the different activities in to action verbs. If a unit is mainly research based then the title will be “Research: “. If a unit involves creating something, then the title will be “Create”. If a unit involves reading to gain knowledge, then the title could be “Learn” or “Inquire”. Consistent wording enables the learner to understand what each unit of a course entails.

    VISUALS, VISUALS, VISUALS

    If the LMS allows I will create an interface of a grid of icons (which Moodle and other LMSs allow). If a student opens a course and encounters a wall of text it is usually quite daunting. A nice array of colourful yet not distracting icons makes a world of difference. Obviously, videos, infographics, images, and other elements that break down walls of text are all beneficial to the end user.

    CREATE ALL THE THINGS

    If we still adhere to the adage that to create is to know, then creating artefacts of learning in an online environment makes a lot of sense. I was surprised that the lecturers at MU were overjoyed when I asked them to create infographics to present their understandings of the concepts we had just read about. They immediately could see them using infographics with their students in their field. Something that I have used in K-12 education for a long time had not found its way to higher education and made me realise that certain pedagogical approaches that I may deem mainstream may be innovative in other realms.

    Discover more from Edutechniques

    Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

    Source link

  • 10 Reasons to Go Digital with Your Course Materials – Eric Stoller

    10 Reasons to Go Digital with Your Course Materials – Eric Stoller






    When I was a college student, there were times when I skipped out on buying a required textbook for a course. Finances were always tight, so I tried to balance my checkbook with buying actual books. Even then, textbooks weren’t cheap. Today, students are paying more and more for their higher education experience. If a university can find ways to make attending college more affordable, accessible, and “high-tech/high-touch”, well, it’s not really an option, it’s a necessity.

    Today’s technology makes it easy to distill course materials into digital formats and enhances them as a result.  Colleges and universities are quickly shifting from books to bytes to improve the student experience and boost course outcomes.

    Here are 10 reasons why your university should go digital with its course materials:

    1. Affordability: This may seem like an obvious reason to move to digital delivery of course materials. Students will end up paying less for digital course materials. From production to shipping, textbooks require a lot of costly infrastructure. Digital materials eliminate these costs and pass the savings on to students.
    2. A better experience for students with disabilities. Unlike print books, modern eTextbooks can be accessible “out of the box.”  When eTextbooks include features such alternative text descriptions of visuals and content that can be used with assistive technology, students can start reading right away, without waiting for a disability services department to create a file.
    3. Learning Analytics and Digital Integration: Can you remember when a physical book connected to a digital learning system? It’s just not possible. However, with digital course materials, integration with the campus LMS/VLE is possible. Plus, with learning analytics built in, digital materials can help support at-risk learners who may need additional assistance.
    4. Recruitment: Digital course materials might not seem like they give universities a recruitment edge, but in an increasingly competitive enrollment landscape, everything helps. Students seek modern solutions for their educational experience. For bring-your-own-device (BYOD) campuses and institutions that provide technology platforms for students, digital course materials hit the sweet spot. They create more affordances for student success and showcase a university experience that is effectively using the latest technologies.
    5. Multi-Platform Capability: The ability to view course materials on a variety of devices represents a huge advantage for digital course materials. If a student needs to read a chapter while on the go, odds are, they will be able to access it on whichever device they have with them. Also, it’s a good bet that no one misses having a backpack filled with textbooks.
    6. Seamless Group Work: University campuses are filled with versatile seating and project workspaces. You can’t project a textbook onto a large screen, but you can with digital course content. It’s simply a matter of either plugging in or wirelessly beaming content to a screen. It makes group work and collaboration a much easier task. 
    7. Always Current: Have you ever tried to update a textbook? Editions come and go, each one costing more than the last. With digital course materials, content is as up to date as possible and it doesn’t cost students more for this “always current” content. Who wants a used book when you can have a new digital version? 
    8. Instant Access: No longer do students have to search for the lowest price option or wait until after term starts. Instant access to digital materials, through programs such as Pearson Inclusive Access and others, ensures all students are ready to learn on the first day of class, not the third week. It’s as easy as logging into the university system, selecting the appropriate course, and downloading the material to a compatible device.
    9. Interactivity: Textbooks have been surpassed in form, function, and capability. Digital course materials allow authors the opportunity to embed audio and video into their work. This makes for a much more interactive and “real” experience for students. 
    10. Retention: Anything that a college or university can do to assist students with their academic success is a good thing. Digital course materials aid and enhance an institution’s ability to improve their overall retention rates and bolster student success with all of the supportive elements in this list. 

    What would you add to this list?

    Digital course materials are not the future for higher education; they’re the present. It’s only a matter of time before your institution goes digital for student success.

     

    This post was sponsored by Pearson as part of a higher education influencers collaboration.





    Source link