technology in schools

Image by Adobe Stock

Using evidence to help build and evaluate good ideas in education technology

Educational Technology, , , , , , , , ,

As researchers, we care that our educational systems improve, support all learners, and are grounded solidly in research evidence. But how do we work with stakeholders like educational technology startups to support effective use of that evidence? Researchers and practitioners worry about this, because we care about evaluating and scaling good ideas. By ‘scaling’ we mean adjusting and improving good ideas as they are rolled out and used.

Some common ways that people think about how we build evidence and scale innovations include:

  • taking approaches tested in controlled settings and implementing them
  • looking for ‘success stories’ and trying to copy lessons from them and
  • taking a systematic approach to analyse context for places to change and evaluating these changes, the Improvement Method.

Research on how we use evidence in policy and practice (and policy practice) can help inform us when we try to work with startups and other stakeholders on education projects. Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the University of Stirling in the UK, Paul Cairney, compares the three approaches in the table below.

Three approaches to evidence-based policy-making

Emulate Approach

In much work in education, we are looking to implement programs or technologies in contexts using an emulation approach; copying tested interventions. In our teaching that can also result in coming at research from a top down perspective, using key studies and methods but with a disconnect from local needs and context.

But these interventions are critiqued for their simplicity in the education context because they imply that interventions occur in a vacuum rather than in a complex context where we’ve already got lots of interventions going on. We might be evaluating a program that has already been implemented, and often our implementation process doesn’t follow this linear model.  

Storytelling Approach

The push back against the emulation approach is sometimes to instead focus very heavily on local context and storytelling approaches. This approach respects the expertise of professionals – which is important – but can result in key lessons not being distilled and shared, idiosyncratic ‘hit or miss’ practices, and ad hoc improvement cycles that may be driven by particular interests.

In the edtech space, much of the evaluation conducted by providers is based on testimonials. Although these can be useful, they’re typically not going to get at deeper issues of learning or help us evaluate our work. 

Improvement Methods

So, then, Improvement methods have been adopted in education systems, for example explicitly by the Carnegie Foundation, an independent research and policy centre in the US, and arguably in other forms such as Research Practice Partnerships (which are collaborative, long-term relationships between researchers and practitioners, designed to improve problems of practice in education) and other design based research approaches. Because these approaches work closely with practitioners to connect theory and real-world problems, they attempt to avoid ‘transmissive’ communication (one way communication) of research.

Our UCL EDUCATE project

At UCL (University College London) – which Simon recently visited while on sabbatical – the EDUCATE project has been created to help build a stronger evidence base in the EdTech sector. It uses this kind of approach. The approach is visualised through the ‘golden triangle’ connecting EdTech companies, entrepreneurs and start-ups with first-class business trainers, experts and mentors.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/rxgBpc9p3QFcI84iFhsNMfVQKihSpezX15eIFHz-v4HXTgpJqY8XBgQiKhoZuPfmePhnAm5w2GiuHkcvYJEwa3hJehhV_ELuRy1cxACayLhSl8IU4JPoe07rwx1T5DLLN6T9G9cF

The Golden Triangle of evidence-informed educational technology

The UCL EDUCATE project worked with 252 small to medium-sized enterprises (max 250 employees, <£5m annual turnover) in 12 cohorts between 2017-19.  The idea was to get EdTech creators, educators, investors and policy makers working together to understand what “works for learners and how to use technology to serve its users effectively.” As the program developed, it shifted from more general introductions to research methods and established research knowledge, to greater recognition that the nature of evidence is both varied and serves different purposes for enterprises at different stages of development.

The EDUCATE programme avoided the issue of transmissive or emulation-based research by building capacity in educational technology enterprises to conduct their own research, using theories of change to generate practical, robust, research. The aim, then, isn’t just to translate research into practice, or implement outcomes from RCTs, but to try and move from storytelling about products, to an improvement mindset. 

UTS Implementing Learning Analytics

In the work we’ve been conducting at the University of Technology Sydney we’ve taken a kind of improvement based approach, by looking at existing teaching practices, and seeking to augment those practices, rather than simply dropping in a new technology without understanding the context, or with a requirement for a particular type of teaching for it to be used.  Our focus is improvement-oriented innovation. This approach is intended to improve adoption and support existing good practices by learning from them and to amplify them through the technology. 

We believe it is important, when we think about the role of new technologies and approaches in education, to consider the way we use evidence. Understanding the different approaches – implementation, storytelling, or improvement – and how they work to achieve impact can be invaluable to all stakeholders.

Simon Knight is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Transdisciplinary Innovation at the University of Technology, Sydney. His research investigates how people find and evaluate evidence, particularly in the context of learning and educator practices. Dr Knight received his Bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and Psychology from the University of Leeds before completing a teacher education program and Philosophy of Education MA at the UCL Institute of Education. Following teaching high school social sciences, Dr Knight completed an MPhil in Educational Research Methods at Cambridge, and PhD in Learning Analytics at the UK Open University. Simon is on Twitter @sjgknight

Anissa Moeini is a doctoral candidate at the UCL Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University College London, UK. As a seasoned tech entrepreneur, Anissa identified the need to build research capacity in edtech enterprises that is both agile to their pace of change and also adaptable to the rhythm of SMEs. Through her doctoral research she developed the Evidence-informed Learning Technology Enterprise Framework (ELTE) as a practical tool for edtech companies and other non-academic stakeholders (investors, policymakers and education practitioners)  to both evaluate the efficacy of edtech enterprises (i.e. their products and services) and to build capacity to be evidence-informed.  Anissa completed her MA at Teachers College, Columbia University in NY, USA and her iBBA at the Schulich School of Business in Toronto, Canada. She will be defending her doctoral dissertation in 2020. Anissa is on Twitter @AnissaMoeini

Alison Clark-Wilson is a Principal Research Fellow at UCL Knowledge Lab, UCL Institute of Education, London. Her research spans the EdTech sector with a particular emphasis on the design, implementation and evaluation of technology in real school settings. Dr Clark-Wilson received a Bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering prior to becoming a secondary school mathematics teacher in the early 1990s. Her 30-year career has spanned school, university and industry-based education contexts. Dr Clark-Wilson completed a MA at the University of Chichester and a PhD from UCL Institute of Education, both in mathematics education. Alison is on Twitter @Aliclarkwilson

 

Image by Adobe Stock

ESports (videogame playing) recognised as school sport in Australia. Let the games begin

eSports in schools, , , , , ,

Although many sports fans might not realise it, some of the biggest sporting events of the past five years have involved organised competitive videogame playing called ‘eSports’. The most successful eSports players and teams complete on a professional basis for massive prize money in front of arena crowds of thousands of paying spectators, bolstered by audiences of millions of online viewers.

For example there were over 200 million concurrent viewers for the 2018 championship finals of the League of Legends, and over forty million players participated in online qualifiers for the Fortnite World Cup last year, competing for $30 million in prize money.

This is a serious business. The global eSports industry is worth more than $1 billion, and there is now a serious push to include eSports in the roster of summer Olympic events. Closer to home, the Victorian government is spruiking Melbourne as ‘the home of Australian eSports‘ and supports an annual large competitive event in the city’s Olympic Park.

Recognising the educational potential of eSports

Given the youth appeal of eSports, schools and colleges are understandably beginning to explore the connections between eSports and education. In a practical sense, this has seen the emergence of representative school eSports teams sitting alongside the usual footy, soccer and cricket squads.

At the top end, some US colleges have started to offer ‘eSports scholarships’ to attract elite student-players. More prosaically, over 160 high schools in Australia and New Zealand compete in the ‘META High School eSports league’ run by the Adelaide Crows AFL club.

Prioritising student participation in eSports has been welcomed as having the potential to overcome the problems inherent in supporting physical school sports.

Inclusivity

Perhaps the most obvious advantage that could be touted is inclusivity – eSports is seen as accessible to a diversity of students with health and mobility restrictions, as well as other physical disabilities. The ease of access also might help to diversify the nature of who gets to play elite school sport. Competitive schools sports in Australia have traditionally remained the preserve of white, middle class, able-bodied boys. ESports has the potential to introduce a vastly different demographic of school sports ‘stars’ and ‘gun’ athletes.

No need for access to expensive sporting fields or coaches

At the same time, eSports can overcome many of the problems that schools face when struggling to adequately resource and staff their sports provision – from the upkeep of pitches to finding specialist teachers and coaches.

In particular, eSports has been welcomed as a ready alternative for rural and under-resourced schools struggling to find the resources, specialist coaches and volunteer-time required to keep a sports team running.

Less concern for physical injury

In addition, eSports neatly avoid concerns over the dangers of physical school sport – from concussion to broken bones and soft tissue injuries.

Teaching and learning applications of eSports

Interest is also growing in the possible teaching and learning applications of eSport across all areas of the curriculum.

Perhaps most obviously, participation in eSports is seen to develop a range of so-called ‘21st century skills’ – such as strategic thinking, collaboration, communication and peer mentorship. The emphasis on game-related data and statistics has obvious links with mathematics and numeracy, while the process of building, branding and managing teams fits neatly with commerce education and business studies.

The appeal of eSports has also been seized as a way of increasing the participation  of under-represented groups in STEM subjects. As the North American Scholastic ESports Federation reason, “ it could literally change the game in how we integrate STEM education with workforce sectors and industries in order to attract more students”.

The need for caution and the role of educational researchers

Of course, it is important to retain a sense of perspective amidst this excitement. While eSports is clearly booming in popularity, education has a long history of over-hyping new digital technologies and genres. If eSports is going to buck the trend set by previous digital ‘next big things’ in education, it is important that we develop a balanced perspective on how schools and colleges might make best use of eSports. This is where academic researchers with expertise in the areas of digital education and sports education can play an important role.

The dangers of exacerbating the digital divide

For example, experience of digital education over the past 30 years suggests a number of equity-related issues that might impact on school eSports. Most notable, is the continuing ways in which students’ engagements with technology are compromised by enduring and entrenched ‘digital divides’. For example eSports requires very powerful, high-spec computing facilities coupled with high-speed broadband connectivity.

We know that relatively large numbers of Australian households and schools lack this capacity – casting doubt on claims of eSports offering all students a level-playing field.

Possibility of misogynistic and damaging games culture

While eSports prides itself on an inclusive and supportive player community, research shows the wider online games culture can be far less inclusive. High profile issues such as the ‘Gamergate’ controversy, where women were harassed and “doxed” reflect a misogynist and generally non-progressive nature of some online gaming communities, which needs to be considered when developing eSport participation in schools.

Issues over excessive computer game playing

At the same time, other areas of academic research point to possible issues over the impact that excessive computer games playing can have on mental health and physical well-being. Academic researchers remain divided on the possible significance of so-called ‘video game addiction’, or disruption to sleep, vision and posture. Nevertheless, there has been sufficient evidence to persuade the World Health Organization to list ‘game disorder’ in the 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases.

The benefits of physical sports in schooling should not be dismissed

Similarly, physical education and school sport research highlights a number of ways that the perceived advantages of eSports are already being realised in other forms of physical sport participation. Indeed, the pedagogic basis of physical sport at school has advanced in a number of significant ways over the past 20 years. For example, the learning gains associated with participation in physical sport now cross over into other curriculum areas. More emphasis is placed on model approaches to teaching sports within physical education, including the Sport Education model and the TPSR (‘teaching personal and social responsibility’), where students are involved in associated activities around the playing of sports – from organisation and planning, through to analysis, coaching and officiating.

Through participation in sports delivered using these models, all students can develop cooperation, negotiation and teamwork skills that transfer into other aspects of their lives.

More broadly, sport continues to be a tool for achieving a range of youth policy objectives including assisting the integration of young people from migrant and refugee communities through to supporting recovery from mental illness.

The rise of ‘informal sport’ and ‘pop-up’ sport offers alternatives

In addition, ongoing research also points to the rise of so-called ‘informal sport’ and ‘pop-up sport’, activities where people of all ages come together to participate in social, deregulated activities. The success of junior ‘park runs’ and local ‘bunch rides’ offer intriguing alternatives to the increasingly commercialised and corporate world of eSports. Indeed, the informal sport format certainly stands in contrast to the ongoing development of eSports as a professional sport supported by corporate sponsorship and a highly profitable gambling industry.

The urgent need for expert input and debate

As the push for eSports in schools gathers momentum, it is crucial that education researchers begin to pay more attention. At the moment, much of the enthusiasm for educational eSports is well-meaning but under-scrutinised. There are clear educational opportunities here, but also a risk that existing problematic issues are replicated, and that some good existing practices in terms of physical sports are marginalised.

To date, most academics working in the area of physical education and sport research have ignored the rise of eSports – possibly dismissing it as not being based around physical activity, and therefore beyond their remit. At the same time, most digital education researchers have also been slow to respond – perhaps feeling that debates over the place of video games in schools have long passed as a ‘hot topic’.

Nevertheless, if schools and educators are to make the most of eSports – particularly in terms of finding meaningful place within the broader curriculum – then we need more expert input and debate. As this brief introduction has illustrated, there is a lot here to discuss and research … let the games commence!

Dr Ruth Jeanes is an Associate Professor within the Faculty of Education and Director of Initial Teacher Education at Monash University. Ruth is a social scientist whose research interests focus on the use of sport and active recreation as a community development resource, particularly to address social exclusion amongst acutely marginalised groups. Methodologically Ruth seeks to give voice to disempowered individuals and communities within her research. Ruth is President of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Leisure Studies and is a member of several journal editorial boards including the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Sociology of Sport Journal, Managing Sport and Leisure and Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. Ruth is on Twitter @RuthJeanes

Michael Phillipsis a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education, Monash University. His work focuses on the knowledge expert teachers develop when integrating educational technologies into their practice. Additionally, Michael researches the ways in which expert teachers make active decisions about their classroom technology integration. Michael’s research regularly involves collaboration with colleagues from Australia, the United States, Europe, Asia and the sub-continent. Michael is on Twitter @thinkingmike

Neil Selwyn is a professor in the Faculty of Education, Monash University (Australia). He previously worked in the UCL Institute of Education, and Cardiff School of Social Science (UK). His latest book is Selwyn, N. (2019) Should Robots Replace Teachers? Cambridge, Polity. Neil is on Twitter @Neil_Selwyn

Transforming education through technology: Vision vs Reality

digital technology in schools, technology in schools, , ,

Government advisors emphasise the importance of digital technology’s “transformative potential” for learning; top private schools splash advertisements of children with expensive robots across newspapers; and tech companies pitch their latest product to the market “to turn lessons into enriching learning experiences”. The vision is clear: digital technology will transform education.

But look into the average school around Australia and what really is happening?

First order barriers still exist  

Bringing digital technologies into schools in Australia has not been easy.  Some schools have yet to pass the “first order” barriers, such as access to reliable Internet. Many schools are using Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs and the different devices and platforms that teachers have to deal with can be a nightmare. Lack of onsite tech support adds more pressure.

All of this can make the use of technologies and teaching Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in schools time consuming and frustrating for many teachers.

Other concerns with digital technologies include dealing with online bullying, students misusing technology in class and addressing parental concerns over excessive screen time.

Increase in teacher workload

On the face of it, digital technologies should create extra time. Online feedback to students can be immediate for some things, saving having to test and process a whole class. And everyone has instant access to expert knowledge: no more trudging off to search shelves in the library. Working with technology that once required a lot of time, expertise and equipment, such as having students work on a video together, can now be assigned for homework.

Online communication and collaboration can be quick and effective, helping develop many 21st Century skills, such as critical thinking and teamwork. The technologies now available should help schools more easily “focus on human interaction, strategic and creative thinking”: those skills seen as necessary for a future transformed by technology.

But the reality is that digital technologies have created more work for teachers, not less. Educational data mining, ostensibly used to highlight areas where students need extra help, is experiencing exponential growth. Collecting and reporting student data has become overwhelming and has meant that teachers struggle to find time to do their job. Educators wonder what data they will be asked to collect and process next about their students.

So how important is digital literacy?

There are two main justifications given for teaching digital technologies in schools. The first is that of multiliteracies: making and creating meaning in a range of modes such as print, body language, music, games and websites. In this way, digital literacy can be seen as just another kind of literacy that needs to be taught in schools.

The other, much more controversial reason, is that digital technology can help improve the way students learn and the way teachers teach.

Digital literacy as literacy

Around 80% of government services are now online signalling a belief that the public is digitally literate enough to access basic information this way – although callers to Centrelink or Medicare may argue this point. And the level of digital literacy required in society will likely grow as Information and Communication Technology (ICT) becomes more entrenched in industry.

Of all the 21st Century skills employers demand, digital literacy is the most rapidly increasing. School graduates don’t consistently have the standard of digital literacy expected and the federal and state governments have produced school curriculums they hope reflect the urgency of the situation. This seems a sound justification to include ICT in our schools. Few would argue that digital literacy is not needed by school graduates.

The Australian Curriculum includes digital technologies as an individual learning area, like history or science, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as a general capability to be included in all subjects across the Foundation to Year 10 curriculum. In many schools, the digital technologies strand is also integrated across the curriculum. It’s not hard to imagine ICT in a science classroom where students are already doing things like electric circuits, but there are also many instances where ICT is working in other subjects. For example, my son’s Japanese class regularly Skypes a sister school in Japan to play games, chat in Japanese and English, and exchange cultural food recipes. Even subjects like Health and Physical Education have changed as students collect data and analyse their own fitness with Fitbits (a wearable device that records steps and heart rate). But many educators still see ICT as busy work with little pedagogical value in some lessons.

Can digital technologies improve the way students learn?

 The second justification given for teaching digital technologies in schools is that somehow this will help students “learn better”. This is where the main controversy lies. What evidence do we have that this is true? As computers have been in schools for such a short time and used very differently, it is hard to find conclusive proof that using them and teaching ICT makes a difference.

Declines in NAPLAN results are widely reported in the media, so we don’t seem to have improved learning outcomes, and, worse, the NAP-ICT results indicate that students’ digital competence is actually decreasing, adding evidence to a large body of work that the widespread belief that young people are “digital natives” is just not true.

Some teachers may not want to engage with digital technology, seeing it as an optional extra. The argument goes along the lines of: I learned history without digital technology so why should I include it in my lessons?

Then there is the commonly stated second order barrier, that teachers just don’t have sufficient digital skills to understand how it can be used effectively. For example: 5-7 year olds are expected to learn “how data are represented by changing pixel density (resolution) in a photograph with support and noting the change in file size to successfully email to a friend”. But this is a task many teachers would struggle with.

We believe it is therefore crucial that teacher education specifically includes digital skills and the critical frameworks needed to evaluate the pedagogical worth of digital tasks, so teachers can make informed decisions about including the general capability of ICT, that is digital technologies, in their lessons.

There are also teachers who do have the skills, who can imagine and create amazing, engaging, student centred digital lessons, but choose not to. These are the teachers that can tell us the most about digital technology in education and more research needs to be conducted in this area to understand the processes they go through when deciding to include ICT or not.

Another issue is the wow factor. Teachers who have been at the cutting edge of technology in schools for a while have seen technologies come and go. An example of this is the interactive whiteboard, which now sits sadly in many classrooms, used only as a projection screen.  The increased teacher workload, involving training and time spent creating lessons through the interactive whiteboard software seems to have come and gone. While there may have been an increase in excitement, enthusiasm and engagement as the shiny new toy was brought out to play, there is little evidence that learning was improved. Could the same engagement have been achieved by bringing a puppy into the classroom? Unless there is a clear reason for ICT into the classroom, why would teachers use it?

The future

The pace of change for digital technologies is very fast. Today makerspaces and robotics are not uncommon in schools; augmented and virtual reality are making a comeback; and the Internet of Things (imagine a smart classroom school where the classroom temperature, lighting, and air quality are self-adjusted and then sensors in the room measure the amount of noise and activity to see if they need to be changed) and more sophisticated Artificial Intelligence are predicted to be on the way.

Professional learning needs to work with, rather than on, teachers to help them unpack the digital technologies and ICT capability in the Australian curriculum in a meaningful way. Communities need to work with schools to promote the use of digital technologies, particularly among girls, and remind them that digital technology skills are important in all subjects and for all jobs, not just tech ones. Schools are currently facing opportunities to restructure their already crowded curriculums to promote this.

If we really do want transformation, the gaps in the way Australia deals with digital technologies in schools, in the application of the ICT capability in the Australian curriculum, in teacher education and, especially, in the support for schools and teachers to implement the curriculum need to be filled. In the next 10-20 years’ we will have graduates who have had the new curriculum for their full schooling and hopefully, our future young Australians will have a more consistent level of digital competence and confidence.

 

Amber McLeod is a lecturer and early career researcher in the Faculty of Education, Monash University.  Before joining Monash, Amber was a microbiologist and then taught English as an additional language in Japan, Brunei and Australia.  She is the Director of Pathways Programs and teaches a range of units including digital technologies. Amber’s research focus is on increasing digital competence in the community. This includes investigating attitudes towards ICT, cultural understandings of ICT and ways to increase pre-service teacher digital competence.  Amber is also passionate about the role of ICT in increasing access and equity, in particular, how digital competence can be taught in pathway courses, and its role in successful student transition to university and retention.  

 

Dr Ibrahim Latheef is a lecturer in ICT and digital technologies in education in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. Latheef was a primary teacher for six years and head of school in the Maldives. Latheef is a digital technology enthusiast and is continuously exploring how technologies impact human consciousness. As a result his interest lies in the use of technology as tools in education and the sociocultural and sociohistorical impact on the learners. This specifically includes the subjects of mind and interactivity, cultural historical impact of technologies in education, digital games in education, digital literacy as a way of thinking and mixed realities in education

 

Ten ways to improve online learning for students

online learning, , , ,

Online learning has become a well-recognised part of the broader landscape of higher education. It is also proving to have a critical place in widening access and equity within this landscape. Increasing numbers of students from backgrounds historically under-represented at university are taking the opportunity to study online, particularly through open-entry and alternative pathways, with many of these learners being the first in their family or community to undertake university studies.

However, retention in online undergraduate studies is considerably lower than in face-to-face programs. An Australian Government Department of Education and Training report in 2017 said only 46.4% of fully external, domestic online undergraduate students completed their studies from 2005 to 2014 compared with a completion rate for internal, on-campus students, of 76.6%. Similarly, the recent Australian Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP) Discussion Paper shows that external, online students are 2.5 times more likely than on-campus students to leave university without a qualification.

So I believe it is crucial to look closely at what is happening and to do something about it. My research is focused on examining what is needed to engage and support diverse cohorts of students to stay and succeed in online education.

My role as Equity Fellow

During 2015 the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE) at Curtin University called for applications for three inaugural Equity Fellows to be appointed in 2016, with a further three to be appointed for 2017. Applicants needed to propose a research project aimed at improving student equity in higher education. I was very fortunate in being selected as one of these three Equity Fellows for 2016. For my research project, which was completed at the end of March 2017, I investigated teaching and pedagogy practices, institutional supports and retention strategies within online undergraduate learning; the overall objective being to develop a set of national guidelines to provide sector leadership on evidence-based ways to improve the access, success and retention of students in online undergraduate education.

Seven key findings

I interviewed 151 participants involved in online learning – academic, professional and management staff at 15 Australian universities and at the Open University UK. I sought the combined wisdom of practitioners in online learning; asking them about the interventions/strategies for online students (in teaching and/or support) that they (or others in their university) were using, which they thought might be having a positive impact on access, retention and/or academic success.

I asked them whether any of their interventions/strategies were being measured or evaluated, and if so, in what ways, and did they know of any results? I also asked them what else they thought was important for institutions to do to help their online students stay and succeed?

From these 151 interviews, seven key findings emerged:

  1. A strategic whole-of-institution approach is required; one that recognises online education as ‘core business’. This approach needs to include an institution-wide understanding of the nature and diversity of the online student cohort as well as the development and implementation of quality standards for online education, which undergo continuous quality improvement.
  2. Early intervention with students to connect, prepare and engage is essential; particularly in terms of providing realistic expectations and encourage and facilitating academic preparation.
  3. “Teacher-presence’ plays a vital role in building a sense of belonging to the learning community and in improving student retention; however the time-consuming nature of developing and maintaining a strong sense of ‘teacher-presence’ is not always recognised in existing workload models.
  4. Content, curriculum and delivery need to be designed specifically for online learning; they need to be engaging, interactive, supportive and designed to strengthen interaction amongst students.
  5. Regular and structured contact between the institution and the student is important in providing connection and direction along the student journey. This includes proactively reaching out to students at particular points along their journey, and is best achieved through the development of an institutional framework of interventions.
  6. Learning analytics play an important role in informing appropriate and effective student interventions, including through predictive modelling and personalising the learning experience.
  7. Collaboration across the institution is required to integrate and embed support; delivering it to students at point of need. When academic and professional staff cross traditional boundaries to work more closely together, a more holistic student experience can be delivered, including embedding support within curriculum.

Voices of online students and the importance of connecting

I compared these findings with the findings of two previous research projects that I was involved with in 2015 and 2016, where online students were interviewed about their experiences of online study. I found remarkable congruence between the perceptions of those students, and the perceptions of the staff interviewed for this research project, about what is most important in creating an engaging and supportive learning environment for online students.

For example, students in these previous studies talked about their need “for inductions and orientations on how to use stuff”; and how difficult it can be to understand what’s required when told “you all need to redo your referencing for the next assessment, which was another essay; they gave us no tutorial or anything”.

The students also knew that “what works in person is not the same as online”. They stressed the need for a “relationship with people” and having staff who “connect with us students”. This need for connection was expressed in many ways, such as: “it’s nice to hear another human being’s voice”; or, when contact and connection was not forthcoming, they spoke about “the lack of interaction” and being “in isolation, teaching myself”, leading to a belief that “universities don’t really care about or engage with online students very much”.

National Guidelines for improving student outcomes in online learning

 The seven findings from my research have informed the development of a set of 10 National Guidelines for Improving Student Outcomes in Online Learning, designed to inform institutions about ways to improve student outcomes primarily in undergraduate online education, where there tends to be a considerable diversity of the student cohort; this includes students from backgrounds historically underrepresented at university, as well as those with little prior experience of academic study and/or online study. However, these guidelines are likely to be at least in part transferable to other online post-secondary education settings particularly where there is a similar diversity of student cohort.

  1. Know who the students are – at an institutional level, understand the cohort, its diversity and needs
  2. Develop, implement and regularly review institution-wide quality standards for delivery of online education – ensuring that online education is ‘core business’ and not an ‘add-on’
  3. Intervene early to address student expectations, build skills and engagement
  4. Explicitly value and support the vital role of ‘teacher-presence’ – through training, mentoring, resources, workload and payment
  5. Design for online – adopting an ‘online first’ approach to curriculum, content and delivery design
  6. Engage and support through content and delivery – building an interactive and inclusive learning environment
  7. Build collaboration and teamwork across faculties, services and divisions, to offer holistic, integrated and embedded student support
  8. Contact and communicate throughout the student journey – developing a comprehensive intervention strategy, with academic and professional staff working together
  9. Use learning analytics to target and personalise student interventions – building a learning analytics strategy that underpins student engagement and support
  10. Demonstrate the importance of online education through appropriate institutional resourcing – treating online education as core business, budgeting for it appropriately, and understanding that it is not a money-saving option

Each of the above guidelines is discussed in more depth in the full report, with suggestions on how each guideline can be translated into action. For example, some of the possible actions for Explicitly value and support the vital role of ‘teacher-presence’ (Guideline 4) include institutions’ ensuring that the role of teacher-presence is recognised and valued within institutional quality standards for online education. Within these standards, online teachers would receive appropriate training, support and resourcing, through the allocation of sufficient teaching time, workload allocation and appropriate technology. Through such measures, online teachers would be in a stronger position to provide an interactive, connected learning experience for online students.

For more detail please go to the full report Opportunity Through Online Learning

 

Cathy Stone, DSW (Research), is a Conjoint Associate Professor in the School of Humanities and Social Science at the University of Newcastle. Cathy was an inaugural Equity Fellow during 2016 with the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, where she is currently a 2017 Visiting Research Fellow. Much of her research and publications focus on the experiences of mature-age, first-in-family and online students. Cathy is currently an Independent Consultant and Researcher on the support, engagement and success of diverse student cohorts in higher education, and is an Accredited Mental Health Social Worker with the Australian Association of Social Workers.Cathy can be contacted for any questions or further discussion at cathy.stone@newcastle.edu.au

 

Cathy is one of the hundreds of educational researchers presenting their research at the 2017 AARE Conference in Canberra all this week.

*NOTE to readers and bloggers. Our Facebook and LinkedIn shares are not showing in Firefox. Our tech people are on the case.