Assignment
U se in differ ent underg raduat e y ears
1st
Examining specific uses of interactive media, we see no disciplinary differences in terms of students’ use of the Internet. This is one of the activities that is most frequently used by all students across the region. Unlike a UK-based study (Hammond and Bennett 2002), which found that a predominant use of computers in the Humanities was individual study of resource materials, we found that resource materials were important across a wider range of disciplines.
Science students report less frequent use of computers for electronic readings and lecture notes compared to students from other disciplines. This contradicts findings from the UK, which demonstrate that Clinical and Science students make greater use of databases and electronic journals than Humanities and Arts students (Urquhart, Thomas et al.
2003).
We also note that Science and Health Sciences academics report a high frequency of asking students to use a computer to look for examples of previous assignments, and imagine that this reflects common strategies for teaching and learning in those disciplinary areas. We are curious, however, about why these and not other discipline groups specifically adopt this strategy.
It is interesting that we can discern no particular pattern, in terms of Biglan’s framework, in the use of interactive media.
5.2.6.1 How interactive media forms are used to support the event of discovery in the different disciplinary groupings
When looking at the use of computers for the event of discovery, staff report a higher frequency of use of interactive media in the hard disciplines of Science and Health Sciences compared to the soft disciplines of Humanities and Business, whereas students note more frequent use of interactive media in the applied disciplines of Engineering, Health Sciences and Business compared to the pure disciplines of Science and Humanities (Figure 5.9).
These findings contradict a US study, which found that undergraduates in soft disciplines engaged in more
information-seeking behaviour than those in hard disciplines, and that undergraduates in pure disciplines engaged in more information-seeking behaviour than those in applied disciplines (Whitmire 2002).
There is concurrence between staff and students from Humanities and Business disciplines in terms of their frequency of use compared to other disciplines. However, as with narrative media, students from Science disciplines are reporting less frequent use of interactive media compared to students from other disciplines, whilst staff from Engineering disciplines are reporting less frequent use of interactive media compared to staff from other disciplines.
Figure 5.9 visually depicts the way disciplinary groupings are using various media forms. The closer the point to the centre of the web the less frequent the reported use and the further away from the centre the more frequent the use.
This representation enables us to examine
• which disciplines have a high and low frequency of use of a particular media form compared to each other
• the differences between what students and staff in each discipline report in terms of frequency of use.
Figure 5.9: Summar y of staff and student indices of use of interactive media across disciplinar y groups
Interactive media
0 1 2 3 Business
Engineering
Health Sciences Humanities
Science staff student
In fact, aside from Health Sciences, our findings contradict other studies that demonstrated that Science students make greater use of electronic databases and journals, and that undergraduates in the soft disciplines engage in more information-seeking behaviour than those in hard disciplines.
Perhaps it is because this is the media form with which almost all staff and students engage frequently, therefore disciplinary differences are not pronounced. Certainly aside from Science and Health Sciences staff there seems to be very little difference in frequency of interactive media between disciplines.
5.2.7 The teaching event of dialogue: use of communicative media forms as reported by staff and students
Teaching & learning event Dialogue
Teaching strategy
Set up, frame, moderate, lead, facilitate discussions Learning experience
Discussing, collaborating, reflecting, arguing, analysing, sharing
Related media form Communicative
Conversation with other students, lecturer or self Examples of non-computer-based activity Seminars, tutorials, conferences
Examples of computer-based activity Email, discussion forums, blogs
Dialogue is the foundation of the pedagogical relationship (Vygotsky 1978) and is the premise upon which Laurillard’s conversational framework of teaching and learning in higher education rests. The classroom has even been described as the site of various forms of dialogical interactions (Stables 2003), and, as mentioned earlier, the affordance of computers for dialogue has been argued to be one of the most significant offerings of the networked computer terrain.
We were therefore especially interested to know whether and how communicative media are used by students and staff.
The most frequent activity using communicative media to support dialogue was communication between student and lecturer by email (26% of students and 59% of staff did this frequently – see Table 5.17). Staff exhibited less difference in frequency of use in terms of the other activities, whilst students were quite differentiated.Students engaged in email discussion as their next most frequent activity (22%), followed by online discussion (12%), chat (10%) and lastly online audio and video conferencing (5%).
Table 5.18 shows that few students (22%) who used communicative media forms participated in all activities at least rarely or more often. This does not measure frequency;
instead it measures whether or not an individual engages with the range of activities for the event of dialogue in some way. It indicates that the variety of use is limited within the event of dialogue. Students use computers for communication in their studies in a limited way.
Responses from students regarding their general use of computers for communication suggest that 36% of students use a computer to communicate daily and 28%
do so weekly (Figure 5.2). However, this high use of communicative media does not translate into their learning
Table 5.15: Student ranking of their use of interactive media according to discipline groupings
Question Business Engineering
Health
Sciences Humanities Science
Electronic readings 2 2 3 2 1
Lecture notes 2 2 3 1 1
Internet resources same same same same same
General information about
the subject 2 3 2 2 2
Examples of previous
assignments 3 3 2 2 2
2.25 2.5 2.5 1.75 1.5
* Where 1 equals least frequent and 3 equals most frequent
Table 5.16: Staff ranking of their use of interactive media according to discipline groupings
Question Business Engineering
Health
Sciences Humanities Science
Electronic readings 2 2 3 2 3
Lecture notes 2 2 3 2 3
Internet resources 2 2 3 2 3
General information about
the subject 2 2 3 2 3
Examples of previous
assignments 2 2 3 2 3
2 2 3 2 3
* Where 1 equals least frequent and 3 equals most frequent
Table 5.17: Use of communicative media forms
Students
Think about your experience studying at [your institution]
Staff
Think about your experience teaching at [your institution]
Yes No Yes No
Have you ever been asked to communicate as part of your subjects?
65% 35%
Have you ever asked your students to communicate as part of your
subjects? 81% 19%
Has this ever involved using a
computer? 55% 45%
Has this ever involved using a
computer? 66% 33%
Students: If yes, how often do you use a computer to Staff: If yes, how often do you ask students to use a computer to Infrequently Occasionally Frequently Infrequently Occasionally Frequently participate in an
email discussion, e.g. a listserver or
newsgroup? 54% 24% 22%
participate in an email discussion, e.g. a listserver or
newsgroup? 45% 18% 37%
participate in online chat as part of the
subject? 74% 16% 10%
participate in online chat as part of a
subject? 54% 13% 33%
participate in an online discussion forum as part of the
subject? 71% 17% 12%
participate in an online discussion forum as part of the
subject? 52% 14% 34%
participate in an online audio/video
conference? 88% 7% 5%
participate in an online audio/video?
conference 57% 10% 33%
communicate with
the lecturer by email? 40% 34% 26%
communicate with
you by email? 20% 20% 59%
Communicative
average 65% 20% 15% 46% 16% 38%
activities. A generous interpretation of this low usage is that these are all contact institutions. However large anonymous undergraduate classes offer little interactivity, nor much opportunity for academics to gain insight into the difficulties experienced by students (Nicol and Boyle 2003). ICTs offer tremendous possibilities in improving communication and a sense of presence in such contexts. Indeed, it has been noted that “ICT has created one specific new form of contact … Online communication allows learners and educators to remain separated by time and space (although some forms of communication assume people congregating at a common time) but to sustain an ongoing dialogue”
(Council on Higher Education 2004, p.76).
Our findings also raise questions about the role of communicative media in the informal learning process. The importance of peer support and learning is evident in the problem-solving strategies students use when they have a problem doing something using a computer (37% of students report asking a friend for assistance, compared to 18% who ask for IT support). A growing body of research is currently demonstrating the potential of peer learning as a powerful enabling learning mechanism in computer-mediated contexts. Nicol and Boyle found that university students in Engineering had a strong preference for peer instruction (Nicol and Boyle 2003) and McLuckie and Topping, who looked at the role of online peer-assisted learning, found that it developed greater self-regulation and self efficacy amongst students (McLuckie and Topping 2004). In the light of the credence of peer learning and the significance of dialogue for learning, the possibilities of computers to facilitate such communication are certainly not being exploited.
In Figure 5.10 we see very little difference in terms of use of communicative media across different levels of study, except in communicating with lecturers by email. This activity is undertaken more frequently by postgraduate students (39%) than those at undergraduate (26%) and foundation (25%) levels. When specifically looking at different years of study amongst undergraduates, we see that 38% of students in fourth year and above email lecturers frequently compared
to 23% of students in first year. Students in fourth year and above use online chat (5%) and forums (7%) less frequently when compared to students in lower levels (>10%).
The fact that postgraduate students frequently email their lecturers is probably due to the likelihood of more intense and established relationships.
5.2.7.1 How communicative media forms are being used to support dialogue in the different disciplinary groupings
Health Sciences were well and truly the most frequent in their communicative use as reported by both staff and students. The pure disciplines of Humanities was the next most frequent and the applied disciplines of Business and Engineering had the lowest frequency of use. It is interesting that this pattern of use occurred consistently across all activities related to communicative media.
There is concurrence between staff and students from Humanities and Science disciplines in terms of their frequency of use compared to other disciplines. However, staff from Business and Engineering disciplines are reporting less frequent use of communicative media compared to staff from other disciplines.
This is consistent with reported disciplinary differences in classroom teaching practices. Hard fields place greater emphasis on common paradigms and have more tightly structured courses with highly related concepts and principles, whereas soft fields focus on development of critical perspectives, have open structures that are more loosely organised and place importance on the development of students’ ability to communicate (Neumann 2001). We would therefore expect Humanities and Business disciplines to have a greater focus on the use of computers for communication.
Whilst the use of online discussion was not very frequent in Humanities, it was very low in Sciences. This is also consistent with Hammond and Bennett’s study that found online discussion features less frequently as an activity within the Physical Sciences (Hammond and Bennett 2002).
Other than the unusual dominance of communicative media in an applied pure discipline (Health Sciences), the other disciplinary findings were to be expected. The fact that computer-based communication is used more frequently in the soft pure disciplines (i.e. Humanities) compared to the hard pure and applied pure disciplines of Science and Engineering is predictable. This is consistent with classroom teaching practices, which show that hard fields have more
Table 5.18: Variation of student use of communicative media forms for activities with the event of dialogue
Count Percentage
Unvaried 3154 78%
Varied 672 22%
(n) 3154
* Varied = use of more than one activity
Ov er all use U se at differ ent le ve ls
U se in differ ent underg raduat e y ears
1st