A four levels framework to understand quality practices in active e-Learning
Author(s):
Conference:
ECER 2014
Format:
Paper

Session Information

16 SES 04, ICT in Higher Education

Paper Session

Time:
2014-09-03
09:00-10:30
Room:
B011 Anfiteatro
Chair:
Duygu Albayrak

Contribution

The use of technology has never been more widely spread in universities than today. The increase use of open educational tools and concepts, social media and mobile learning, encourages Higher Education (HE) institutions to give firm steps towards ubiquitous learning spaces. New national and European educational directives are set up to give each year more and more emphasis to online education and provision by helping to bridge the gap between learners and between HE and society in general. Different studies however have made the argument that the use of technology by itself does not lead to better learning and in fact can drive to disruptive, unprepared and ineffective practices (Blin & Munro, 2008). In fact as the distance between the learner and the instructor increases, the greater is the chance of increased dissatisfaction, failure and dropout (Levy, 2007; Park & Choi, 2009). Hence there is not a direct link between quality learning and teaching and the use of technology.

A recent study from Hattie (2009) which aims to identify the variables that influence success in the learning process in the different educational levels, in the US context, suggests that e-Learning is considered by the students as not to being a relevant variable in the promotion of better learning experiences. The findings from Hattie’s study suggest that e-Learning is not usually perceived by the instructor and by the student as being aligned with the teaching practice but as something additional to the learning environment, an add-on (Liaw, Huang, & Chen, 2007). Goodyear, et al. (2001) alerted us, back in 2001, that academics need to become different teachers, with different pedagogical competencies if they want to be effective in their e-Learning strategies. This argument is also supported by different authors who perceive the importance of engagement and active learning when using technology for promoting learning (Hannafin, Hannafin, & Gabbitas, 2009; Oliver, 2008). Without a commitment from academics to actively engage and support students, technology does not serve the purpose of learning enhancement and consequently it becomes just another way of delivering content and information.

It is therefore important to unpack the meaning of an active use of e-learning. One meaning that derives us to a pedagogical oriented view of technology which is active and student-oriented and that in fact promotes a better learning experience to the students. This drives the construction of the research questions that oriented the development of this study: What is quality in active e-Learning in Higher Education and how can we defined it?  The study objectives are: (i) to identify what is active e-Learning, (ii) to identity what is perceived as quality in active e-Learning by the sector and (iii) what standards can be drawn from the triangulation between theoretical frameworks and an empirical qualitative study.

Method

This research is sustained in a Ground Theory method (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Charmaz, 2006) since it generates a theory from an interpretative analysis of data, in this case unpacking the concept of active e-Learning and the formulation of quality standards of active e-learning in HE. This research is therefore qualitative in nature and is developed in two phases with 4 steps each: First phase • Step - 1 data collected from the theory, especially focusing on theories of e-Learning and active learning; • Step - 2 interviews with members of academic and non-academic staff from a specific university in Portugal; • Step - 3 data collected from the theory and empirical findings and formulation of instances and categories within the framework; • Step - 4 data findings discussions with international experts in this field of knowledge and elaboration of a revisited framework. Second phase In the second phase having already a first version of the framework it was possible to filter the search using more sharpen concepts and keywords. This allowed searching for more meaningful and oriented data in both the theoretical and the empirical steps. • Step - step 5 data collected within the literature about models that evaluate the quality of e-learning which in some extent would be aligned with the first version of the framework; • Step - 6 focus group technique for understanding the students point a view about quality learning in e-Learning, • Step - 7 data collected from the theory and empirical moments and formulation of concepts and categories within the framework; • Step - 8 data findings discussion both in Portugal and in the UK with international experts in e-Learning and e-Learning quality.

Expected Outcomes

The outcome of this research is a 4 levels framework which allows the different stakeholders in HE to understand the phenomenon of e-Learning from an active learning point a view having in mind the (i) institution background, (ii) the stakeholders background, (iii) the programme design and (iv) the learning, teaching and assessment. It comprises 61 domains, 121 categories and 298 quality standards. The use of quality standards helps to envision an understanding of what to do to enhance practices in the use of e-Learning. Hence it is our understanding that this 4 level framework allows readers to understand the meanings of active learning but also have an awareness of what they have to do to promote better practices in the use of e-Learning. Another result we expect to achieve is to extrapolate the findings of the research to other European countries by presenting and discussing the research outputs with European researchers. It is our understanding that this framework has a degree of flexibility that allows to be used in different HE landscapes and in different e-Learning scenarios. Hence this framework has the aspiration of being seen an open instrument for the evaluation of an active use of e-Learning.

References

Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475-490. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Limited. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 65-72. Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition during student-centered, Web-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(6), 767-785. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9117-x Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-Learning courses. Computers & Education, 48, 185-2004. Liaw, S.-S., Huang, H.-M., & Chen, G.-D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-Learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1066-1080. Oliver, R. (2008). Engaging first year students using a Web-supported inquiry-based learning setting. Higher Education, 55(3), 285-301. Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217.

Author Information

Diogo Casanova (presenting / submitting)
Kingston University
Centre for Higher Education Research and Practice
Kingston upon Thames
Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal
University of Aveiro
Education
Aveiro

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.