- Email: [email protected]
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning for on-campus and distance education students: Lessons learned and ways forward
Nurse Education Today (2009) 29, 157–167
Nurse Education Today www.elsevier.com/nedt
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning for on-campus and distance education students: Lessons learned and ways forward Jillian Dorrian
a,*
, Dale Wache
b
a
School of Psychology, University of South Australia, C1-20 Magill Campus, St. Bernards Road, Adelaide, SA 5000, Magill, Australia b Professional Development, Flexible Learning Centre, University of South Australia, Australia Accepted 19 August 2008
KEYWORDS
Summary While flexible delivery techniques, including online technologies, are becoming widely used to cater for the differing needs of students, they are not always met with enthusiasm, and can cause anxiety in students who are unfamiliar with the online environment. Online delivery of a first year nursing course (for distance learning and face-to-face provision) was introduced to facilitate reliable student–staff and student–student communication and streamline assessment procedures during a period in which class sizes increased (from 500 in 2003 to more than 650 in 2004 and 2005). Results of an evaluation exercise are presented, which aimed to: (1) trial online methods for course delivery and assignment submission; (2) canvass both student and staff responses to these innovations; (3) identify areas requiring change/improvement; and (4) formulate a strategy for improvement and continuing use of the technologies. Results suggested a positive response to the innovations by both staff and students. However, several implementation issues were identified, as were suggestions to overcome these initial hurdles. Iterative re-evaluation and continual development will examine the total benefit of these improvements. Taken together, this process has highlighted the importance of open communication, reducing anxiety and resistance to innovation, formal and informal evaluation processes and continued systems development. c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Online learning; Flexible delivery; Student-centred learning
Introduction * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 8302 4480; fax: +61 8 8302 4729. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Dorrian).
The worldwide nursing shortage is a significant concern for many countries, including Australia (AIHW, 2003; Senate Committee, 2002; Karmel and Li,
0260-6917/$ - see front matter c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2008.08.010
158 2002; Government of South Australia, 2003). Nursing shortages provide an impetus to educate and graduate larger numbers of nursing students. This presents two primary challenges: (1) to make nursing studies convenient for and attractive to a wider cohort of students and (2) to maintain educational quality while class sizes are increasing. One potential solution is to use flexible delivery methods. Flexible delivery in education centres on instilling in clients a responsibility for their learning by maximising their control over its content and delivery, and by employing the most beneficial methods for the clients, including online delivery (ANTA, 2003). Certainly, the potential benefits of webbased delivery in nursing education have been argued (Cox, 2002), and trials of online delivery in nursing programs have found positive outcomes in student satisfaction and employment (Baldwin and Burns, 2004; Cox, 2002). However, self-directed learning techniques such as those typically employed in online distance education are not always met with enthusiasm by learners. Indeed, if not employed effectively, self-directed learning can lead to student anxiety and resentment towards the teacher (reviewed in Levett-Jones (2005)). In a study of postgraduate nurses, Honey (2004) found that not all students had easy access to the internet, nor did they have the same abilities using online technologies. Traditionally, nurses have been accustomed to a faceto-face, didactic learning environment (DeBourgh, 2003). Therefore, careful introduction of online techniques into nursing education is necessary, as it may represent a substantive change in learning style for students. While it has been found that nursing students can adjust to web-based learning, the most important predictor of student satisfaction is excellence in pedagogy, irrespective of technology (DeBourgh, 2003). Thus, not only is it important that students are comfortable with online learning techniques, it is also imperative that staff do not find the change in delivery method to be a barrier to effective teaching. The University of South Australia (2007) follows a conceptual Teaching and Learning Framework, theoretically grounded in Social Constructivism (reviewed in Palincsar, 1998), which suggests that individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences, specifically focusing on social and individual processes. Social Constructivism as a description of human understanding is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote active learning. Mechanisms include: (1) acknowledging that learners have different approaches to learning; (2) encouraging learners to take responsibility for their own learning; and (3) providing
J. Dorrian, D. Wache learners with choice over when/how they learn. These goals are enabled through a commitment to flexible delivery, providing students with a range of learning resources. In practice, this is achieved through University support, which encourages staff to use a combination of more traditional forms of information transfer and communication (e.g. printed materials, face-to-face lectures, and tutorials and workshops), and innovative methods (e.g. websites, e-readers, online discussion forums, and video-conferencing). With increasing adoption of online learning methods, blended learning has become an important trend. It has been defined as ‘‘the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences’’ (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004, p. 96). Internationally, the blended learning literature highlights the importance of the word thoughtful in this definition. Indeed, a fundamental aspect of blended learning approaches is that they use face-to-face and online learning mechanisms in a combination that maximises the benefits of both (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003). The blend is particularly important, given than introduction of online techniques can lead to learner reports that they miss the face-to-face interaction (Stodel et al., 2006). Indeed, positive outcomes appear dependent on the interpersonal skills of educators, as well as the reliability and user-friendliness of the technology (Derntl and Motschnig-Pitrik, 2005). If done well, benefits include deeper learning, increased interaction, increased sense of learner control, economic efficiency, easily updated learning materials (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003), and improved learner satisfaction, retention (Twigg, 2003), course completion rates (Singh, 2003; Twigg, 2003), and learning outcomes (Singh, 2003). In 2004, blended learning methods were introduced into a first year nursing and midwifery course delivered both on-campus and by distance. This conducted, at least in part, in response to increased student numbers (from 500 in 2003 to more than 650 in 2004 and 2005). The University places were increased primarily because the Government wanted to increase nursing student numbers, in response to the workforce shortage. At the same time, student course evaluations from previous years indicated that students felt that they needed increased support and interest from staff and faster and more detailed assessment feedback. A clear recommendation from the blended learning literature is the systematic evaluation of staff and student responses following implementation of new techniques (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). To this end, this paper presents results from a
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning course evaluation exercise involving structured consultation with staff and students on the implementation online teaching technologies. The online environment for this course was designed to address concerns about student support by facilitating staff–student and student–student interaction, streamlining assessment turn-around, and providing more detailed assessment feedback. The overarching goal was to provide a more flexible, active learning environment. This was developed to enhance learning opportunities, particularly for distance learning students, redressing some of the inevitable imbalance between students who are able to attend a university campus, and those with life circumstances that make this unfeasible. Specifically, the exercise aimed to: trial online methods for course content delivery and assignment submission; canvass both student and staff responses to these innovations; identify areas requiring change/improvement; and formulate a strategy for improvement and continuing use of the technologies.
Methods Methodology This study is the result of a course evaluation exercise, utilising data from several sources. In 2005, staff responses to a blended learning intervention (which began in 2004) were collected by the course coordinator. Student responses were collected by adding specific and open-ended questions to the standard anonymous course evaluation instrument. In addition, selected standard course evaluation questionnaire items were compared for 2004 and 2005 (2003 data unavailable). Data relating to stu-
159 dent numbers, age and non-completions was accessed from archive course records for the years 2003–2005 to capture one-year prior and two years during blended learning implementation. In 2004/2005 when these data were collected, UniSA did not have a specific policy regarding the use of course evaluation instrument data for publication. The authors treated them simply as archive data. In 2007 guidelines were introduced which specified correct ethical procedure such that students would be informed prior to their completion of the course evaluation that their data may be analysed and published. Since the data in this manuscript do not conform to the new guidelines, approval to publish the data in this manuscript was sought and granted by the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee.
Participants The course was delivered to first year students of Bachelor of Nursing and Bachelor of Midwifery degrees. Student numbers, ages and non-completion rates are displayed in Table 1. The majority of students engage in off campus or distance learning (DL), while a portion receives face-to-face provision (FTF). The non-completion rate remained stable (around 10%) across 2003, 2004 and 2005 for DL students. In contrast, this figure decreased for FTF students. Students in this course typically have diverse demographics and experience. While take the course immediately after completing high school, a large number of students are experienced enrolled nurses, studying to become registered nurses. Students enrolled through two campuses (one local, one regional centre), and there were two lecturers and eight tutors. The course aimed to provide a broad introduction linking psychology to the study of nursing and midwifery. The online learning environment constructed for the nursing students reflected the basic tenets of
Table 1 Student descriptive variables for each year split by learning mode: distance learning (DL) or face-to-face instruction (FTF). Table displays mean (±standard deviation, SD) ages (rows 1 and 2), percentage of students who did not complete the course due to withdrawal or failure (rows 3 and 4) and numbers (rows 5 and 6) Mode
2003
Age Mean (±SD)
DL FTF
32.2 25.3
Non-complete %
DL FTF
9.7 8.0
9.8 2.8
10.2 1.6
N
DL FTF
329 176 505
417 321 738
364 305 669
Total
2004 (10.0) (8.9)
33.8 24.1
2005 (9.9) (8.1)
32.9 24.3
(9.8) (9.2)
160 the Social Constructivist Approach described above by offering different ways for students to actively engage with learning, encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning and providing choice about what/how/when they learn. Online developments included: Course homepage This was developed to provide all of the information needed to complete the course. It included a welcome page; course description; staff photos and biographies; a noticeboard; discussion groups (of up to 50 students); assignment information, mark sheets, practice quizzes, example essays, information on searching for references; online learning information with links to University Policies, support services and help functions; general course information and timetables; links to e-readings; and topic folders for each week containing lecture notes, lecture recordings, readings, and activities. Assignment submission tool Students submitted essay files (stored centrally on the University server), which were downloaded, marked and electronically returned. The course coordinator was also able to access marks and correspondence between each of the staff and their students using this tool. Multiple-choice quiz tool Multiple-choice quizzes were delivered through an online quiz tool. This allowed students to log-on multiple times and complete the quiz within a specified time frame. Their responses were stored centrally on the University server.
Course evaluation The course coordinator recorded any reported issues regarding implementation of online technologies and followed up with the staff involved at the end of the study period. During the course five of the eight staff reported online difficulties. These staff were asked to (1) detail the implementation barrier(s); (2) the action engaged in to overcome the(se) barrier(s); and (3) whether this was successful. Marking turn-around times were also recorded. Students completed an online course evaluation instrument (CEI), in keeping with standard University practice. This Instrument contains 10 standard statements about aspects of student satisfaction with the course and also allows for the addition of extra questions requiring either fixed or open an-
J. Dorrian, D. Wache swers. For fixed answer questions, students must chose whether they strongly agree, agree, feel neutral, disagree or strongly disagree with each of the statements presented. The following results are from the CEI that was open for student responses in November and December 2005, at the end of the 13-week course. Eight fixed response statements were added to the CEI in 2005 in order to capture student response to the online developments. Four questions related to general responses to the online environment: 1. The online approach in this course was designed to make students active learners. 2. The online parts of my course contributed to a friendly, supportive learning environment. 3. I had adequate skills to operate online. 4. The on-screen instructions provided adequate guidance for my studies. Four questions related to responses to specific aspects of the online environment: 5. The online lecture recordings were useful. 6. I was encouraged to participate in online discussions. 7. I was encouraged to contact other students in my discussion group. 8. Participation in online discussions brought significant learning outcomes for me. Two questions from the standard CEI were identified in 2004 as needing improvement. These were compared in 2004 and 2005: 9. I felt that there was a genuine interest in their learning needs and progress. 10. I received feedback that was constructive and helpful. Qualitative responses from the student CEI were collected from two open response questions: 11. Overall, what were the strengths of this course? 12. Are there any ways this course can be improved? Analyses investigated qualitative staff responses by identifying implementation barriers and solutions, classifying them according the aspect of the online environment to which they related, and mapping this against the original motivation for developing these aspects. Quantitative responses from the student CEI were displayed on ra-
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning dar plots and tabulated percentages of positive (strongly agree and agree) and negative (disagree and strongly disagree) responses to the statements. Qualitative responses from the student CEI were grouped into themes according to the aspect of the online environment to which they related.
Results Staff reports Staff reports are summarised in Table 2. Staff reported that effective use of discussion boards required energy, planning, structure and direction. The issue of ‘‘netiquette’’ or the code of net conduct (Pallen, 1995) arose. Issues included overuse
Table 2
161 of capital letters, which can be interpreted as yelling (Spinks et al., 1999) and briefly stated replies to questions, which without the benefit of other cues (e.g. tone of voice, facial expression), were interpreted as unfeeling and curt. Shea (1994) outlines 10 primary rules of netiquette. These were used to create an open, supportive online atmosphere of mutual respect and responsibility. The multiple-choice quiz was considered successful for streamlining testing and marking, with a turn-around time of less than 24 h. There were several technical issues (e.g. a small number of DL students in remote areas had an unreliable internet connection). Issues were resolved through follow-up with the IT development department and by providing very clear instructions for students.
Summary of positives, negatives and suggested improvements to online technologies Motivation and innovation
Implementation barriers
Solutions
Course homepage
Learning to use new software Excellent support from Provide a central course resource, accessible from anywhere, containing for website development and University Learning Connection all course info, online lectures, links to management readings, activities, course updates, discussion boards, etc.
Discussion boards
Increase students’ feelings of support
Allow reliable communication with staff
Postings more often related to administrative concerns than course ideas Netiquette
Staff providing more specific structure and direction for discussions Creating and maintaining staff and student expectations regarding conduct
No receipt Question character limit
Post results straight away Reword questions/IT follow-up Clarify instructions Discuss with students, allow submission alternatives
Provide a forum for discussion of course concepts Encourage peer networking Reduce staff burden by allowing students to help each other M-C quiz tool
Test a large body of knowledge Streamline testing and marking
Nameless submissions Student internet connections
Assignment submission tool
Avoid lost work Improve turn-around Allow submission and marking from anywhere, anytime Facilitate return of work Allow coordinator to monitor submission and marking Streamline inter-marker standardisation
Student anxiety/techno phobia File naming Marking on the computer vs printing Inability to batch upload, download or print
Communication and support for students Clarify instructions IT follow-up
162
J. Dorrian, D. Wache
Staff responded positively to the assignment submission tool, which avoided loss of paper copy submissions. Marking moderation was streamlined. Some staff were uncomfortable with the idea of marking online. However, all staff chose to trial on-screen marking, and as previously mentioned, turn-around time was reduced from an average of two to three weeks to less than one week. Staff also detected a degree of resistance from some students who felt anxious about using online tools. Staff tried to identify these students early, and provide extra support and guidance.
Student response rates Response rates were as follows:
The online approach in this course was designed to make students active learners
DL students: n = 120 (total = 364), response rate = 32.97% FTF students: n = 72 (total = 305), response rate = 23.61% Overall: n = 192 (total = 669), response rate = 29.3%
General responses to the online environment Students responded to statements 1–4 (described above) that related generally to the online environment (Fig. 1, Table 3). Overall, student responses were positive. DL students responded more positively than did the FTF students. While responses
The online parts of my course contributed to a friendly, supportive learning environment Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40
40 No responses
30
Agree
No responses
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Neutral
Strongly disagree
Neutral
The onscreen instructions provided adequate guidance for my studies
I had adequate technical skills to operate online Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40 30
40 Agree
No responses
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
No responses
30
Strongly disagree
ALL DL FTF
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Figure 1 Radar plots displaying responses (percentage of students surveyed) to questions relating to general aspects of the new online learning environment for distance learning (DL) and face-to-face provision (FTF) students.
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning
163
Table 3 Percentage of responses that were positive (strongly agree and agree) and negative (disagree and strongly disagree) for questions relating to general aspects of the new online learning environment for distance learning (DL) and face-to-face provision (FTF) students Active learners Positive DL FTF All
80 61 73
Friendly, supportive
Adequate skills
On-screen instructions
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
4 11 7
67 63 65
12 19 15
87 81 84
3 6 4
82 72 78
6 13 8
The online lecture recordings were useful
I was encouraged to participate in online discussions
Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40 No responses
30
40 Agree
No responses
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Neutral
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Participation in online discussions brought significant learning outcomes for me
Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40 30
40 Agree
No responses
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Agree
Disagree
I was encouraged to contact other students in my discussion group
No responses
30
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
ALL DL FTF
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Figure 2 Radar plots displaying responses (percentage of students surveyed) to questions relating to more specific aspects of the new online learning environment (online lecture recordings, and discussion boards) for distance learning (DL) and face-to-face provision (FTF) students.
to questions 1, 3 and 4 were encouraging (73–84% positive), only 67% of DL students responded positively to question 2 (the online parts of my course contributed to a friendly, supportive learning environment).
Responses to specific aspects of the online environment Students responded to statements 5–8 (described above) relating to lecture recordings and discussions
164
J. Dorrian, D. Wache
Table 4 Percentage of responses that were positive (strongly agree and agree) and negative (disagree and strongly disagree) for questions relating to more specific aspects of the new online learning environment for distance learning (DL) and face-to-face provision (FTF) students Lecture recordings Positive DL FTF All
63 47 57
Discussion participation
Other student contacts
Learning in discussions
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
5 18 10
65 35 54
17 39 25
53 28 44
17 46 28
46 21 36
18 47 29
(Fig. 2, Table 4). They were less positive than the general responses described above (36–57%). The lowest positive response was given for question 8 (participation in online discussions brought significant learning outcomes for me). More positive responses were made by DL students, with 46% (compared to only 21% of FTF) answering positively to this question. More DL students reported discussion board participation (65% compared to 35%). Students were also asked open-ended questions relating to course strengths, suggested improvements. Out of a total of 120 comments from DL students, 42 (35%) related to the online environment. Of these, 31 (74%) were positive, and 11 were critical. Positive comments primarily related to the ease of use of the course homepage, the variety in delivery of information and assessments. For example, one student reported that there was ‘‘plenty of online support, through e-mails with the lecturer, advice on the discussion boards, and advice on the psych home page. everything was very clear’’. Another reported that ‘‘the online nature of this course meant that all updates pertaining to the course were available almost instantly – this made it much easier to keep track of work’’. Critical comments centred on technical difficulties with access, with the learning format of online discussion groups and with receipts for completion of online quizzes. In addition, there was a sense from some students that they would like more in-person contact: ‘‘sometimes I would just like to be able to talk to some-one’’. Out of a total of 72 comments from FTF students, 13 (18%) related to the online environment. Of these, nine (69%) were positive, and four were critical. Positive comments focused on online lecture notes and assessment. Critical comments related to technical difficulties. There were also eight comments that specifically related to the advantages of the flexible delivery approach. These centred on benefits of self-paced learning, e.g. ‘‘ability to study at per-
sonal pace helps, as some concepts [are] more difficult to master than others’’.
Feelings about staff interest and assignment feedback While CEI questions relating to the online environment were authored and added for the 2005 questionnaire, two relevant questions also appeared in the CEI sent out for the prior delivery of the course in 2004 (questions 11 and 12 above, Fig. 3). In 2004, 48% of DL students responded positively (26% negatively) to question nine (genuine interest in their learning needs and progress). This increased to 61% in 2005 (12.5% negative). Further, 62% of DL students in 2004 responded positively (26% negatively) to question 10 (constructive and helpful feedback). In 2005, the number of positive responses increased to 75% (14% negative).
Discussion This study examined student and staff responses to the introduction of a blended learning strategy. Overall, responses were constructive and encouraging. Staff found that the innovations streamlined marking processes and turn-around time. Main problems for staff related to technical issues, netiquette and running discussion boards effectively. These issues were resolved by technical support from the University, clear instructions and planning. In general, DL students reported higher levels of engagement with, and more positive comments regarding, the online environment than the FTF students. Affirming responses to the flexible delivery approach were also found. It is possible that DL responses to online technologies were more positive than FTF responses because these technologies were core for the DL students. A further possibility is that, since DL students tend to report a desire for more interaction (Stodel et al., 2006), the increased interaction that
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning
165
I felt that there was genuine interest in my learning needs
I received feedback that is constructive and helpful
Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40 No responses
30
40 Agree
No responses
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Neutral
Strongly disagree
Agree
Neutral
DL 2004 DL 2005 Disagree
Disagree
Figure 3 Radar plots displaying responses (percentage of students surveyed) to questions relating feelings about staff interest and assignment feedback. Responses from distance learning (DL) students in 2004 (grey diamonds) and 2005 (black squares) are compared.
can result from appropriate implementation of blended learning techniques (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003) may have been particularly important for these students. In addition, the FTF nursing students may have relied on the didactic FTF learning environment to a larger degree, as it may have been more familiar (DeBourgh, 2003). Indeed, this may have been the first time (especially since many of the students were in first year) that they were exposed to choice, responsibility for and control over their learning, representing a dramatic change for them. Although DL responses were generally more positive, only 67% responded positively to the statement: ‘‘the online parts of my course contributed to a friendly, supportive learning environment’’. Since this was a primary goal of certain online innovations (e.g. the discussion boards), this could be considered concerning. However, this response may be a reflection of some of the initial problems discussed above (e.g. netiquette), and may increase when this course is run again with the first round of improvements in place. In addition, the lowest positive response was given for the statement: ‘‘participation in online discussions brought significant learning outcomes for me’’. This is directly in line with staff feelings about the discussion boards, that initially, students used them more for administrative concerns than discussion of concepts and ideas. As described above, changing this was a focus for staff. Future course evaluation data will be analysed to gauge whether new strategies have been successful.
One way that these improvements, as well as increased engagement with online technologies, could be facilitated is through socialisation of students into the different nature of the online environment, identifying what online learning has to offer that is different to FTF activities. Most of this information was made available to students in descriptive form, distributed in print and online (course handbooks, instruction sheets, etc.). This could be achieved through devoting an early portion of the course to activities introducing students to each other and to the online environment (e.g. online ice-breakers, online treasure hunts, discussions and activities relating to ‘netiquette’). It is important to note, that since this was an online CEI, results are necessarily skewed. This is particularly relevant for the statement: ‘‘I had adequate skills to operate online’’. Students who felt particularly uncomfortable with the online environment may have been among those who did not respond. With this in mind, the fact that 4% of students that did respond felt that they did not have adequate skills to operate online should be carefully considered. Responses suggested that while there is still a large amount of work to be done, the online innovations improved student feelings relating to staff interest and assessment feedback during a period where increasing class sizes may have made this more difficult. This is particularly important given nursing shortage in Australia (Karmel and Li, 2002; AIHW, 2003) and worldwide (AHWAC, 2003;
166 Senate Committee, 2002), which puts increasing pressure on Universities to attract and graduate larger numbers of nursing students. Notably, failure to complete rates for the DL students remained stable (around 10%) from 2003 to 2005, despite increased student numbers. Moreover, rates improved for FTF students, dropping from 8% prior to online technology implementation, to less than 2% in 2005. This is interesting given that, as discussed above, FTF responses to the online environment were not as positive as those of DL students. Perhaps the online innovations were effective in assisting FTF students, despite a lack of perception that this was the case. Taken together, results suggest that flexible, blended learning innovations of this type may provide a mechanism for improving nursing student responses to education and for maintaining completion rates at a critical time for the global healthcare workforce. This is consistent with previous researchers advocating webbased delivery for this student cohort (Baldwin and Burns, 2004; Cox, 2002). Overall, this study identified several implementation issues along with suggestions for how overcome them. Iterative re-evaluation will examine the total benefit of these improvements. Consistent with previous research, results suggest that online technologies, if used carefully and effectively, can have positive outcomes for learners (e.g. Twigg, 2003; Singh, 2003). Results also highlight the importance of the interpersonal skills of the educators, and the reliability of the technologies (Derntl and Motschnig-Pitrik, 2005). Taken together, this process has identified several areas of importance: 1. Communication: Providing clear and detailed instructions and creating appropriate student and staff expectations of new systems. 2. Reducing anxiety and resistance to innovation: Providing support for students who may not feel comfortable operating in the online environment. 3. Formal and informal evaluation processes: Documenting areas of technology that can be improved. 4. Continued systems development: Involving teams that can provide a high degree of technical and pedagogical support.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Kurt Lushington and Kelly Martin who were instrumental in the introduction of the online environment.
J. Dorrian, D. Wache Additional acknowledgement goes to other staff involved with this course: Peter Winwood, Luke Revill, Sandra Davidson, Renee Petrilli, Christopher Jones, Sarah Jay, Mary Oliver, Jane Farrin and Bronwyn Kanahs. Thanks also to the students.
References Australian Health Workforce Advisory Committee, 2003. Annual Report 2002–2003, AHWAC Report 2003.1. AIWAC, Sydney. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2003. Nursing Labour Force 2001. AIHW Cat No. HWL 26. AOHW (National Health Labour Force Series No. 26), Canberra. Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), 2003 Flexible Learning Business Planning Framework. Australian Flexible Learning Framework, Australia. Baldwin, K., Burns, P.G., 2004. Development and implementation of an online CNS program. Clinical Nurse Specialist 18 (5), 248–254. Cox, L.S., 2002. A web-based course for teaching undergraduate nursing research. The Australian Electronic Journal of Nursing Education 8 (1). DeBourgh, G.A., 2003. Predictors of student satisfaction with distance-delivered graduate nursing courses: what matters most? Journal of Professional Nursing 19 (3), 149–163. Derntl, M., Motschnig-Pitrik, R., 2005. The role of structure, patterns and people in blended learning. Internet and Higher Education 8, 111–130. Garrison, D.R., Kanuka, H., 2004. Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 7, 95–105. Government of South Australia, 2003 Better Choices, Better Health: Final Report of the Generational Health Review, Australia. Honey, M., 2004. Flexible learning for postgraduate nurses: a basis for planning. Nurse Education Today 24, 319–325. Karmel, T., Li, J., 2002. The nursing workforce in 2010: national review of nursing education 2002. The Nursing Workforce, Canberra. Levett-Jones, TL., 2005. Self-directed learning: implications and limitations for undergraduate nursing education. Nurse Education Today 25, 363–368. Osguthorpe, R.T., Graham, C.R., 2003. Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4 (3), 227–233. Palincsar, S.A., 1998. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Reviews in Psychology 49, 345–375. Pallen, M., 1995. Guide to the internet: introducing the internet. British Medical Journal 311, 1422–1424. Senate Committee Report, 2002. The Patient Profession: time for Action. Report on the Enquiry into Nursing, Australia. Shea, V., 1994. Core rules of netiquette. Educom Review 29 (5). Spinks, N., Wells, B., Meche, M., 1999. Netiquette: a behavioral guide to electronic business communication. Corporate Communications 4 (3), 145–155. Singh, H., 2003. Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology 43 (6), 51–54. Stodel, E.J., Thompson, T.L., MacDonald, C.J., 2006. Learner’s perspectives on what is missing from online learning: Interpretations through the community of enquiry. Interna-
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning tional Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 7 (3), 1–22. Twigg, C.A., 2003. Improving quality and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review 38 (5), 28–38.
167 University of South Australia, 2007. Teaching and Learning Framework. url: (accessed 12.02.07, approved 22.06.07).
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Nurse Education Today www.elsevier.com/nedt
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning for on-campus and distance education students: Lessons learned and ways forward Jillian Dorrian
a,*
, Dale Wache
b
a
School of Psychology, University of South Australia, C1-20 Magill Campus, St. Bernards Road, Adelaide, SA 5000, Magill, Australia b Professional Development, Flexible Learning Centre, University of South Australia, Australia Accepted 19 August 2008
KEYWORDS
Summary While flexible delivery techniques, including online technologies, are becoming widely used to cater for the differing needs of students, they are not always met with enthusiasm, and can cause anxiety in students who are unfamiliar with the online environment. Online delivery of a first year nursing course (for distance learning and face-to-face provision) was introduced to facilitate reliable student–staff and student–student communication and streamline assessment procedures during a period in which class sizes increased (from 500 in 2003 to more than 650 in 2004 and 2005). Results of an evaluation exercise are presented, which aimed to: (1) trial online methods for course delivery and assignment submission; (2) canvass both student and staff responses to these innovations; (3) identify areas requiring change/improvement; and (4) formulate a strategy for improvement and continuing use of the technologies. Results suggested a positive response to the innovations by both staff and students. However, several implementation issues were identified, as were suggestions to overcome these initial hurdles. Iterative re-evaluation and continual development will examine the total benefit of these improvements. Taken together, this process has highlighted the importance of open communication, reducing anxiety and resistance to innovation, formal and informal evaluation processes and continued systems development. c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Online learning; Flexible delivery; Student-centred learning
Introduction * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 8302 4480; fax: +61 8 8302 4729. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Dorrian).
The worldwide nursing shortage is a significant concern for many countries, including Australia (AIHW, 2003; Senate Committee, 2002; Karmel and Li,
0260-6917/$ - see front matter c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2008.08.010
158 2002; Government of South Australia, 2003). Nursing shortages provide an impetus to educate and graduate larger numbers of nursing students. This presents two primary challenges: (1) to make nursing studies convenient for and attractive to a wider cohort of students and (2) to maintain educational quality while class sizes are increasing. One potential solution is to use flexible delivery methods. Flexible delivery in education centres on instilling in clients a responsibility for their learning by maximising their control over its content and delivery, and by employing the most beneficial methods for the clients, including online delivery (ANTA, 2003). Certainly, the potential benefits of webbased delivery in nursing education have been argued (Cox, 2002), and trials of online delivery in nursing programs have found positive outcomes in student satisfaction and employment (Baldwin and Burns, 2004; Cox, 2002). However, self-directed learning techniques such as those typically employed in online distance education are not always met with enthusiasm by learners. Indeed, if not employed effectively, self-directed learning can lead to student anxiety and resentment towards the teacher (reviewed in Levett-Jones (2005)). In a study of postgraduate nurses, Honey (2004) found that not all students had easy access to the internet, nor did they have the same abilities using online technologies. Traditionally, nurses have been accustomed to a faceto-face, didactic learning environment (DeBourgh, 2003). Therefore, careful introduction of online techniques into nursing education is necessary, as it may represent a substantive change in learning style for students. While it has been found that nursing students can adjust to web-based learning, the most important predictor of student satisfaction is excellence in pedagogy, irrespective of technology (DeBourgh, 2003). Thus, not only is it important that students are comfortable with online learning techniques, it is also imperative that staff do not find the change in delivery method to be a barrier to effective teaching. The University of South Australia (2007) follows a conceptual Teaching and Learning Framework, theoretically grounded in Social Constructivism (reviewed in Palincsar, 1998), which suggests that individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences, specifically focusing on social and individual processes. Social Constructivism as a description of human understanding is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote active learning. Mechanisms include: (1) acknowledging that learners have different approaches to learning; (2) encouraging learners to take responsibility for their own learning; and (3) providing
J. Dorrian, D. Wache learners with choice over when/how they learn. These goals are enabled through a commitment to flexible delivery, providing students with a range of learning resources. In practice, this is achieved through University support, which encourages staff to use a combination of more traditional forms of information transfer and communication (e.g. printed materials, face-to-face lectures, and tutorials and workshops), and innovative methods (e.g. websites, e-readers, online discussion forums, and video-conferencing). With increasing adoption of online learning methods, blended learning has become an important trend. It has been defined as ‘‘the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences’’ (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004, p. 96). Internationally, the blended learning literature highlights the importance of the word thoughtful in this definition. Indeed, a fundamental aspect of blended learning approaches is that they use face-to-face and online learning mechanisms in a combination that maximises the benefits of both (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003). The blend is particularly important, given than introduction of online techniques can lead to learner reports that they miss the face-to-face interaction (Stodel et al., 2006). Indeed, positive outcomes appear dependent on the interpersonal skills of educators, as well as the reliability and user-friendliness of the technology (Derntl and Motschnig-Pitrik, 2005). If done well, benefits include deeper learning, increased interaction, increased sense of learner control, economic efficiency, easily updated learning materials (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003), and improved learner satisfaction, retention (Twigg, 2003), course completion rates (Singh, 2003; Twigg, 2003), and learning outcomes (Singh, 2003). In 2004, blended learning methods were introduced into a first year nursing and midwifery course delivered both on-campus and by distance. This conducted, at least in part, in response to increased student numbers (from 500 in 2003 to more than 650 in 2004 and 2005). The University places were increased primarily because the Government wanted to increase nursing student numbers, in response to the workforce shortage. At the same time, student course evaluations from previous years indicated that students felt that they needed increased support and interest from staff and faster and more detailed assessment feedback. A clear recommendation from the blended learning literature is the systematic evaluation of staff and student responses following implementation of new techniques (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). To this end, this paper presents results from a
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning course evaluation exercise involving structured consultation with staff and students on the implementation online teaching technologies. The online environment for this course was designed to address concerns about student support by facilitating staff–student and student–student interaction, streamlining assessment turn-around, and providing more detailed assessment feedback. The overarching goal was to provide a more flexible, active learning environment. This was developed to enhance learning opportunities, particularly for distance learning students, redressing some of the inevitable imbalance between students who are able to attend a university campus, and those with life circumstances that make this unfeasible. Specifically, the exercise aimed to: trial online methods for course content delivery and assignment submission; canvass both student and staff responses to these innovations; identify areas requiring change/improvement; and formulate a strategy for improvement and continuing use of the technologies.
Methods Methodology This study is the result of a course evaluation exercise, utilising data from several sources. In 2005, staff responses to a blended learning intervention (which began in 2004) were collected by the course coordinator. Student responses were collected by adding specific and open-ended questions to the standard anonymous course evaluation instrument. In addition, selected standard course evaluation questionnaire items were compared for 2004 and 2005 (2003 data unavailable). Data relating to stu-
159 dent numbers, age and non-completions was accessed from archive course records for the years 2003–2005 to capture one-year prior and two years during blended learning implementation. In 2004/2005 when these data were collected, UniSA did not have a specific policy regarding the use of course evaluation instrument data for publication. The authors treated them simply as archive data. In 2007 guidelines were introduced which specified correct ethical procedure such that students would be informed prior to their completion of the course evaluation that their data may be analysed and published. Since the data in this manuscript do not conform to the new guidelines, approval to publish the data in this manuscript was sought and granted by the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee.
Participants The course was delivered to first year students of Bachelor of Nursing and Bachelor of Midwifery degrees. Student numbers, ages and non-completion rates are displayed in Table 1. The majority of students engage in off campus or distance learning (DL), while a portion receives face-to-face provision (FTF). The non-completion rate remained stable (around 10%) across 2003, 2004 and 2005 for DL students. In contrast, this figure decreased for FTF students. Students in this course typically have diverse demographics and experience. While take the course immediately after completing high school, a large number of students are experienced enrolled nurses, studying to become registered nurses. Students enrolled through two campuses (one local, one regional centre), and there were two lecturers and eight tutors. The course aimed to provide a broad introduction linking psychology to the study of nursing and midwifery. The online learning environment constructed for the nursing students reflected the basic tenets of
Table 1 Student descriptive variables for each year split by learning mode: distance learning (DL) or face-to-face instruction (FTF). Table displays mean (±standard deviation, SD) ages (rows 1 and 2), percentage of students who did not complete the course due to withdrawal or failure (rows 3 and 4) and numbers (rows 5 and 6) Mode
2003
Age Mean (±SD)
DL FTF
32.2 25.3
Non-complete %
DL FTF
9.7 8.0
9.8 2.8
10.2 1.6
N
DL FTF
329 176 505
417 321 738
364 305 669
Total
2004 (10.0) (8.9)
33.8 24.1
2005 (9.9) (8.1)
32.9 24.3
(9.8) (9.2)
160 the Social Constructivist Approach described above by offering different ways for students to actively engage with learning, encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning and providing choice about what/how/when they learn. Online developments included: Course homepage This was developed to provide all of the information needed to complete the course. It included a welcome page; course description; staff photos and biographies; a noticeboard; discussion groups (of up to 50 students); assignment information, mark sheets, practice quizzes, example essays, information on searching for references; online learning information with links to University Policies, support services and help functions; general course information and timetables; links to e-readings; and topic folders for each week containing lecture notes, lecture recordings, readings, and activities. Assignment submission tool Students submitted essay files (stored centrally on the University server), which were downloaded, marked and electronically returned. The course coordinator was also able to access marks and correspondence between each of the staff and their students using this tool. Multiple-choice quiz tool Multiple-choice quizzes were delivered through an online quiz tool. This allowed students to log-on multiple times and complete the quiz within a specified time frame. Their responses were stored centrally on the University server.
Course evaluation The course coordinator recorded any reported issues regarding implementation of online technologies and followed up with the staff involved at the end of the study period. During the course five of the eight staff reported online difficulties. These staff were asked to (1) detail the implementation barrier(s); (2) the action engaged in to overcome the(se) barrier(s); and (3) whether this was successful. Marking turn-around times were also recorded. Students completed an online course evaluation instrument (CEI), in keeping with standard University practice. This Instrument contains 10 standard statements about aspects of student satisfaction with the course and also allows for the addition of extra questions requiring either fixed or open an-
J. Dorrian, D. Wache swers. For fixed answer questions, students must chose whether they strongly agree, agree, feel neutral, disagree or strongly disagree with each of the statements presented. The following results are from the CEI that was open for student responses in November and December 2005, at the end of the 13-week course. Eight fixed response statements were added to the CEI in 2005 in order to capture student response to the online developments. Four questions related to general responses to the online environment: 1. The online approach in this course was designed to make students active learners. 2. The online parts of my course contributed to a friendly, supportive learning environment. 3. I had adequate skills to operate online. 4. The on-screen instructions provided adequate guidance for my studies. Four questions related to responses to specific aspects of the online environment: 5. The online lecture recordings were useful. 6. I was encouraged to participate in online discussions. 7. I was encouraged to contact other students in my discussion group. 8. Participation in online discussions brought significant learning outcomes for me. Two questions from the standard CEI were identified in 2004 as needing improvement. These were compared in 2004 and 2005: 9. I felt that there was a genuine interest in their learning needs and progress. 10. I received feedback that was constructive and helpful. Qualitative responses from the student CEI were collected from two open response questions: 11. Overall, what were the strengths of this course? 12. Are there any ways this course can be improved? Analyses investigated qualitative staff responses by identifying implementation barriers and solutions, classifying them according the aspect of the online environment to which they related, and mapping this against the original motivation for developing these aspects. Quantitative responses from the student CEI were displayed on ra-
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning dar plots and tabulated percentages of positive (strongly agree and agree) and negative (disagree and strongly disagree) responses to the statements. Qualitative responses from the student CEI were grouped into themes according to the aspect of the online environment to which they related.
Results Staff reports Staff reports are summarised in Table 2. Staff reported that effective use of discussion boards required energy, planning, structure and direction. The issue of ‘‘netiquette’’ or the code of net conduct (Pallen, 1995) arose. Issues included overuse
Table 2
161 of capital letters, which can be interpreted as yelling (Spinks et al., 1999) and briefly stated replies to questions, which without the benefit of other cues (e.g. tone of voice, facial expression), were interpreted as unfeeling and curt. Shea (1994) outlines 10 primary rules of netiquette. These were used to create an open, supportive online atmosphere of mutual respect and responsibility. The multiple-choice quiz was considered successful for streamlining testing and marking, with a turn-around time of less than 24 h. There were several technical issues (e.g. a small number of DL students in remote areas had an unreliable internet connection). Issues were resolved through follow-up with the IT development department and by providing very clear instructions for students.
Summary of positives, negatives and suggested improvements to online technologies Motivation and innovation
Implementation barriers
Solutions
Course homepage
Learning to use new software Excellent support from Provide a central course resource, accessible from anywhere, containing for website development and University Learning Connection all course info, online lectures, links to management readings, activities, course updates, discussion boards, etc.
Discussion boards
Increase students’ feelings of support
Allow reliable communication with staff
Postings more often related to administrative concerns than course ideas Netiquette
Staff providing more specific structure and direction for discussions Creating and maintaining staff and student expectations regarding conduct
No receipt Question character limit
Post results straight away Reword questions/IT follow-up Clarify instructions Discuss with students, allow submission alternatives
Provide a forum for discussion of course concepts Encourage peer networking Reduce staff burden by allowing students to help each other M-C quiz tool
Test a large body of knowledge Streamline testing and marking
Nameless submissions Student internet connections
Assignment submission tool
Avoid lost work Improve turn-around Allow submission and marking from anywhere, anytime Facilitate return of work Allow coordinator to monitor submission and marking Streamline inter-marker standardisation
Student anxiety/techno phobia File naming Marking on the computer vs printing Inability to batch upload, download or print
Communication and support for students Clarify instructions IT follow-up
162
J. Dorrian, D. Wache
Staff responded positively to the assignment submission tool, which avoided loss of paper copy submissions. Marking moderation was streamlined. Some staff were uncomfortable with the idea of marking online. However, all staff chose to trial on-screen marking, and as previously mentioned, turn-around time was reduced from an average of two to three weeks to less than one week. Staff also detected a degree of resistance from some students who felt anxious about using online tools. Staff tried to identify these students early, and provide extra support and guidance.
Student response rates Response rates were as follows:
The online approach in this course was designed to make students active learners
DL students: n = 120 (total = 364), response rate = 32.97% FTF students: n = 72 (total = 305), response rate = 23.61% Overall: n = 192 (total = 669), response rate = 29.3%
General responses to the online environment Students responded to statements 1–4 (described above) that related generally to the online environment (Fig. 1, Table 3). Overall, student responses were positive. DL students responded more positively than did the FTF students. While responses
The online parts of my course contributed to a friendly, supportive learning environment Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40
40 No responses
30
Agree
No responses
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Neutral
Strongly disagree
Neutral
The onscreen instructions provided adequate guidance for my studies
I had adequate technical skills to operate online Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40 30
40 Agree
No responses
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
No responses
30
Strongly disagree
ALL DL FTF
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Figure 1 Radar plots displaying responses (percentage of students surveyed) to questions relating to general aspects of the new online learning environment for distance learning (DL) and face-to-face provision (FTF) students.
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning
163
Table 3 Percentage of responses that were positive (strongly agree and agree) and negative (disagree and strongly disagree) for questions relating to general aspects of the new online learning environment for distance learning (DL) and face-to-face provision (FTF) students Active learners Positive DL FTF All
80 61 73
Friendly, supportive
Adequate skills
On-screen instructions
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
4 11 7
67 63 65
12 19 15
87 81 84
3 6 4
82 72 78
6 13 8
The online lecture recordings were useful
I was encouraged to participate in online discussions
Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40 No responses
30
40 Agree
No responses
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Neutral
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Participation in online discussions brought significant learning outcomes for me
Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40 30
40 Agree
No responses
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Agree
Disagree
I was encouraged to contact other students in my discussion group
No responses
30
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
ALL DL FTF
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Figure 2 Radar plots displaying responses (percentage of students surveyed) to questions relating to more specific aspects of the new online learning environment (online lecture recordings, and discussion boards) for distance learning (DL) and face-to-face provision (FTF) students.
to questions 1, 3 and 4 were encouraging (73–84% positive), only 67% of DL students responded positively to question 2 (the online parts of my course contributed to a friendly, supportive learning environment).
Responses to specific aspects of the online environment Students responded to statements 5–8 (described above) relating to lecture recordings and discussions
164
J. Dorrian, D. Wache
Table 4 Percentage of responses that were positive (strongly agree and agree) and negative (disagree and strongly disagree) for questions relating to more specific aspects of the new online learning environment for distance learning (DL) and face-to-face provision (FTF) students Lecture recordings Positive DL FTF All
63 47 57
Discussion participation
Other student contacts
Learning in discussions
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
5 18 10
65 35 54
17 39 25
53 28 44
17 46 28
46 21 36
18 47 29
(Fig. 2, Table 4). They were less positive than the general responses described above (36–57%). The lowest positive response was given for question 8 (participation in online discussions brought significant learning outcomes for me). More positive responses were made by DL students, with 46% (compared to only 21% of FTF) answering positively to this question. More DL students reported discussion board participation (65% compared to 35%). Students were also asked open-ended questions relating to course strengths, suggested improvements. Out of a total of 120 comments from DL students, 42 (35%) related to the online environment. Of these, 31 (74%) were positive, and 11 were critical. Positive comments primarily related to the ease of use of the course homepage, the variety in delivery of information and assessments. For example, one student reported that there was ‘‘plenty of online support, through e-mails with the lecturer, advice on the discussion boards, and advice on the psych home page. everything was very clear’’. Another reported that ‘‘the online nature of this course meant that all updates pertaining to the course were available almost instantly – this made it much easier to keep track of work’’. Critical comments centred on technical difficulties with access, with the learning format of online discussion groups and with receipts for completion of online quizzes. In addition, there was a sense from some students that they would like more in-person contact: ‘‘sometimes I would just like to be able to talk to some-one’’. Out of a total of 72 comments from FTF students, 13 (18%) related to the online environment. Of these, nine (69%) were positive, and four were critical. Positive comments focused on online lecture notes and assessment. Critical comments related to technical difficulties. There were also eight comments that specifically related to the advantages of the flexible delivery approach. These centred on benefits of self-paced learning, e.g. ‘‘ability to study at per-
sonal pace helps, as some concepts [are] more difficult to master than others’’.
Feelings about staff interest and assignment feedback While CEI questions relating to the online environment were authored and added for the 2005 questionnaire, two relevant questions also appeared in the CEI sent out for the prior delivery of the course in 2004 (questions 11 and 12 above, Fig. 3). In 2004, 48% of DL students responded positively (26% negatively) to question nine (genuine interest in their learning needs and progress). This increased to 61% in 2005 (12.5% negative). Further, 62% of DL students in 2004 responded positively (26% negatively) to question 10 (constructive and helpful feedback). In 2005, the number of positive responses increased to 75% (14% negative).
Discussion This study examined student and staff responses to the introduction of a blended learning strategy. Overall, responses were constructive and encouraging. Staff found that the innovations streamlined marking processes and turn-around time. Main problems for staff related to technical issues, netiquette and running discussion boards effectively. These issues were resolved by technical support from the University, clear instructions and planning. In general, DL students reported higher levels of engagement with, and more positive comments regarding, the online environment than the FTF students. Affirming responses to the flexible delivery approach were also found. It is possible that DL responses to online technologies were more positive than FTF responses because these technologies were core for the DL students. A further possibility is that, since DL students tend to report a desire for more interaction (Stodel et al., 2006), the increased interaction that
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning
165
I felt that there was genuine interest in my learning needs
I received feedback that is constructive and helpful
Strongly agree 60
Strongly agree 60
50
50
40 No responses
30
40 Agree
No responses
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Strongly disagree
Neutral
Strongly disagree
Agree
Neutral
DL 2004 DL 2005 Disagree
Disagree
Figure 3 Radar plots displaying responses (percentage of students surveyed) to questions relating feelings about staff interest and assignment feedback. Responses from distance learning (DL) students in 2004 (grey diamonds) and 2005 (black squares) are compared.
can result from appropriate implementation of blended learning techniques (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003) may have been particularly important for these students. In addition, the FTF nursing students may have relied on the didactic FTF learning environment to a larger degree, as it may have been more familiar (DeBourgh, 2003). Indeed, this may have been the first time (especially since many of the students were in first year) that they were exposed to choice, responsibility for and control over their learning, representing a dramatic change for them. Although DL responses were generally more positive, only 67% responded positively to the statement: ‘‘the online parts of my course contributed to a friendly, supportive learning environment’’. Since this was a primary goal of certain online innovations (e.g. the discussion boards), this could be considered concerning. However, this response may be a reflection of some of the initial problems discussed above (e.g. netiquette), and may increase when this course is run again with the first round of improvements in place. In addition, the lowest positive response was given for the statement: ‘‘participation in online discussions brought significant learning outcomes for me’’. This is directly in line with staff feelings about the discussion boards, that initially, students used them more for administrative concerns than discussion of concepts and ideas. As described above, changing this was a focus for staff. Future course evaluation data will be analysed to gauge whether new strategies have been successful.
One way that these improvements, as well as increased engagement with online technologies, could be facilitated is through socialisation of students into the different nature of the online environment, identifying what online learning has to offer that is different to FTF activities. Most of this information was made available to students in descriptive form, distributed in print and online (course handbooks, instruction sheets, etc.). This could be achieved through devoting an early portion of the course to activities introducing students to each other and to the online environment (e.g. online ice-breakers, online treasure hunts, discussions and activities relating to ‘netiquette’). It is important to note, that since this was an online CEI, results are necessarily skewed. This is particularly relevant for the statement: ‘‘I had adequate skills to operate online’’. Students who felt particularly uncomfortable with the online environment may have been among those who did not respond. With this in mind, the fact that 4% of students that did respond felt that they did not have adequate skills to operate online should be carefully considered. Responses suggested that while there is still a large amount of work to be done, the online innovations improved student feelings relating to staff interest and assessment feedback during a period where increasing class sizes may have made this more difficult. This is particularly important given nursing shortage in Australia (Karmel and Li, 2002; AIHW, 2003) and worldwide (AHWAC, 2003;
166 Senate Committee, 2002), which puts increasing pressure on Universities to attract and graduate larger numbers of nursing students. Notably, failure to complete rates for the DL students remained stable (around 10%) from 2003 to 2005, despite increased student numbers. Moreover, rates improved for FTF students, dropping from 8% prior to online technology implementation, to less than 2% in 2005. This is interesting given that, as discussed above, FTF responses to the online environment were not as positive as those of DL students. Perhaps the online innovations were effective in assisting FTF students, despite a lack of perception that this was the case. Taken together, results suggest that flexible, blended learning innovations of this type may provide a mechanism for improving nursing student responses to education and for maintaining completion rates at a critical time for the global healthcare workforce. This is consistent with previous researchers advocating webbased delivery for this student cohort (Baldwin and Burns, 2004; Cox, 2002). Overall, this study identified several implementation issues along with suggestions for how overcome them. Iterative re-evaluation will examine the total benefit of these improvements. Consistent with previous research, results suggest that online technologies, if used carefully and effectively, can have positive outcomes for learners (e.g. Twigg, 2003; Singh, 2003). Results also highlight the importance of the interpersonal skills of the educators, and the reliability of the technologies (Derntl and Motschnig-Pitrik, 2005). Taken together, this process has identified several areas of importance: 1. Communication: Providing clear and detailed instructions and creating appropriate student and staff expectations of new systems. 2. Reducing anxiety and resistance to innovation: Providing support for students who may not feel comfortable operating in the online environment. 3. Formal and informal evaluation processes: Documenting areas of technology that can be improved. 4. Continued systems development: Involving teams that can provide a high degree of technical and pedagogical support.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Kurt Lushington and Kelly Martin who were instrumental in the introduction of the online environment.
J. Dorrian, D. Wache Additional acknowledgement goes to other staff involved with this course: Peter Winwood, Luke Revill, Sandra Davidson, Renee Petrilli, Christopher Jones, Sarah Jay, Mary Oliver, Jane Farrin and Bronwyn Kanahs. Thanks also to the students.
References Australian Health Workforce Advisory Committee, 2003. Annual Report 2002–2003, AHWAC Report 2003.1. AIWAC, Sydney. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2003. Nursing Labour Force 2001. AIHW Cat No. HWL 26. AOHW (National Health Labour Force Series No. 26), Canberra. Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), 2003 Flexible Learning Business Planning Framework. Australian Flexible Learning Framework, Australia. Baldwin, K., Burns, P.G., 2004. Development and implementation of an online CNS program. Clinical Nurse Specialist 18 (5), 248–254. Cox, L.S., 2002. A web-based course for teaching undergraduate nursing research. The Australian Electronic Journal of Nursing Education 8 (1). DeBourgh, G.A., 2003. Predictors of student satisfaction with distance-delivered graduate nursing courses: what matters most? Journal of Professional Nursing 19 (3), 149–163. Derntl, M., Motschnig-Pitrik, R., 2005. The role of structure, patterns and people in blended learning. Internet and Higher Education 8, 111–130. Garrison, D.R., Kanuka, H., 2004. Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 7, 95–105. Government of South Australia, 2003 Better Choices, Better Health: Final Report of the Generational Health Review, Australia. Honey, M., 2004. Flexible learning for postgraduate nurses: a basis for planning. Nurse Education Today 24, 319–325. Karmel, T., Li, J., 2002. The nursing workforce in 2010: national review of nursing education 2002. The Nursing Workforce, Canberra. Levett-Jones, TL., 2005. Self-directed learning: implications and limitations for undergraduate nursing education. Nurse Education Today 25, 363–368. Osguthorpe, R.T., Graham, C.R., 2003. Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4 (3), 227–233. Palincsar, S.A., 1998. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Reviews in Psychology 49, 345–375. Pallen, M., 1995. Guide to the internet: introducing the internet. British Medical Journal 311, 1422–1424. Senate Committee Report, 2002. The Patient Profession: time for Action. Report on the Enquiry into Nursing, Australia. Shea, V., 1994. Core rules of netiquette. Educom Review 29 (5). Spinks, N., Wells, B., Meche, M., 1999. Netiquette: a behavioral guide to electronic business communication. Corporate Communications 4 (3), 145–155. Singh, H., 2003. Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology 43 (6), 51–54. Stodel, E.J., Thompson, T.L., MacDonald, C.J., 2006. Learner’s perspectives on what is missing from online learning: Interpretations through the community of enquiry. Interna-
Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning tional Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 7 (3), 1–22. Twigg, C.A., 2003. Improving quality and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review 38 (5), 28–38.
167 University of South Australia, 2007. Teaching and Learning Framework. url:
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com