note on inclusion of dissertation - amazon web...

Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)

Note on inclusion of dissertation

The following MA Education Dissertation by Andrew Walsh has been included for

three reasons:

• Firstly, it is very well written, in a clear and easy to follow style.

• Secondly, it does what all good research must do which is be critical of the

theories used and the interpretations placed on the data collected.

• Thirdly, it deals with learning theory and students attitudes to different

approaches. A subject that all teachers should be interested in.

• The list of references provided will assist you with your own literature

searches.

As with any piece of academic work the dissertation is not perfect but it does have

many more strengths than weakness. As you read it you might like to identify five

strengths and three areas for further improvement.

Unless you are familiar with research methods, I suggest that you don’t read the Chapter

headed Research Methodology.

Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 1


Abstract.

The Moodle e-learning platform is used to support learning on the pre-registration

mental health nursing course at Birmingham City University. This study sought to critically

evaluate the effect of this resource upon student learning. An attempt was also made to

discover what relationship (if any) existed between Moodle use, student learning approach

and assessment outcome.

Firstly, a literature search into the areas of student approach to learning theory and

how this might influence e-learning was conducted. Following this, a group of 31 Mental

Health Nursing students completed a questionnaire about their use of and attitudes towards

the available e-learning resources. Each student also completed a Study Process

Questionnaire (SPQ) as developed by Biggs (2001). Quantitative data was gathered about

student access to online resources as well as eventual student assessment grades.

Following analysis of this material and consideration of questions raised by the literature

review a series of semi structured interviews was completed in order to more carefully

investigate student attitudes.

The study concluded that student learning approaches as described by Biggs (2001)

are very close to behaviours described by participants. However, data gathered by the study

approach questionnaires was of little use to the study and consequently, questions are

raised about the use of such schedules.

It was possible to identify student patterns of use and attitudes towards Moodle

resources and to relate this to student views about quality of teaching and strategies with

which students organise their studies. The study was also able to identify the importance of

good quality interactions with lecturers and with other students as being important factors in

student learning. The importance of assessment as being a driver of learning was also

apparent. Further study around the experience of specific groups of students, placement

internet access and the use of Biggs SPQ is indicated.

Key Words: e-learning, Mental Health Nursing Students, Moodle, Student study

approaches.



Introduction.

Recent years have seen increased demand for higher education (Bach et al 2007), in

2002, worldwide an average of 29.6% of people aged between 25-64 achieved higher

education qualifications, an increase of 13% over 10 years (OECD 2008). International focus

on higher education is partly influenced by consensus that it is an important economic driver

(OECD 2008). The UK government announced that continued expansion of higher education

could partly be aided by developments in e-learning (DfES 2003). The Higher Education

Funding Council for England (HEFCE) launched a 10 year strategy on e –learning (HEFCE

2005) which acknowledged that many institutions were struggling to implement e-learning.

This growth in e-learning use and the problem of how best to use these resources has been

reflected in my institution.

The University learning and teaching strategy highlights the intention to develop e-

learning resources whilst promoting a deeper and more critical approach to learning (BCU

2006). Across BCU 86% of courses use online learning (JISC 2009). In my area, an

evaluation of students on the mental health course (JISC 2009) found that over a year there

had been an increase to 100% (from 88%) in students accessing online resources. Clearly,

we have had some success in the first part of the Faculty strategy of promoting use of e-

learning. However, we are less sure about what effect this might have on student learning

approaches and the quality of this learning, it is these questions that will be addressed in this

study.

This dissertation investigates mental health nursing students engagement with e –

learning resources and how these may be related to subsequent learning outcomes. This

study is personally relevant to me because I am involved in development of e-learning

resources. From reflection and discussion with colleagues it is clear that we don’t clearly

understand how students use these tools. Questions such as what they find useful, their

attitudes towards e-learning and the relevance to future working require clarification. Another

question is effectiveness, the University has encouraged e-learning but what difference does

this make to student learning?



A previous literature review (Walsh 2008) found no studies about e-learning within

mental health nurse education, concluding that this was an area for future study. The most

important area identified was the need for us to gain feedback about attitudes towards these

resources. It is also intended to consider student approaches to learning and how this

influences the use of these resources. It is hoped that this study will make a practical

contribution to our understanding of how best to use e-learning.

This study aims to do the following:

• Explore student’s usual approaches to learning?

• Investigate associations between student learning approach, individual patterns of e-

learning activity and final assessment grade?

• Investigate what Moodle course usage data can show about individual and group

patterns of e learning?

• Investigate student attitudes towards e-learning accessed, what aspects do they find

useful and what not?

This paper commences with a review of literature critically examining student interaction

with e-learning as well as a discussion of educational theory into student approaches to

learning. There follows a description of the research methodology adopted and a discussion

of aspects such as validity and reliability. The dissertation will present a critical analysis of

the data obtained before discussing findings, suggesting conclusions and areas for future

study.



Literature review.

Literature review: Introduction

Approaches to learning theory form an important part of this study; these ideas have

been strongly challenged and this debate has been reflected in the literature review. It was

also important to place the current study into context with work done in similar areas. The

literature review identifies and critically summarises the most pertinent studies.

This section opens by detailing the literature review process and continues with a

critical evaluation of the literature. The review concludes with a discussion of conclusions

drawn from the literature showing how this has guided the conduct of this study.

Literature review: organisation and summary of material accessed

Firstly, a literature search schedule was developed based upon the research study

questions (see appendix 1). Initial search of databases discovered two hundred and twenty

two papers which on the basis of titles were considered possibly relevant. Abstracts were

checked for relevance against the literature schedule criteria. This reduced the number of

papers down to twenty two. Of these, three were found to be irrelevant, leaving nineteen

papers which suggested another ten possibly relevant studies. This literature review is

based upon twenty nine research papers. A search was also conducted on the University

Library database as well as a manual search. It is now intended to present the literature

review which resulted from this process.

Literature review

In Sweden, Marton and Säljö (1976) gave students passages of prose to read before

questioning them about their understanding. Some, who memorised isolated facts in order to

answer any questions asked, were labelled “surface learners”. Others took a more thoughtful

approach and not only tried to understand meaning but also attempted to make connections

with other learning were said to have taken a “deep” approach to the task. Critical to this

study is the idea that students adopt learning styles depending on their perception of the

circumstances of a particular teaching environment; this study was developed by others.



In Biggs’ (2006) work the idea of individual student learning approaches is developed

into what is described as the ‘presage/ process/product’ model of learning. This model

(influenced by constructivism) emphasises the importance of the learner’s perspective in

determining learning outcomes. Learning occurs not as a result of the student collecting

facts but is instead a process whereby individuals construct personal understandings.

Biggs’ (2006) argues that student approaches to learning determine outcomes.

Students adopting ‘surface’ approaches minimise study and engagement which results in

fragmented learning outcomes, rote learning of key ‘facts’ and patchy understanding of

meaning. Other students initially adopt a ‘deep’ approach; these students are more likely to

study more carefully, seeking to develop personal meanings to study material. These ideas

have become very influential and are commonly used as a theoretical background for

teaching courses in higher education (Kember et al 2008).

The questionnaire used in this study is the two factor SPQ developed by Biggs

(2001) (see appendices section) Much research has investigated the internal reliability of this

instrument concluding that it was a reliable tool for the evaluation of student approaches to

learning. This instrument has since been evaluated and used in a wide range of educational

studies ( i.e. Burnett & Dart 2000, Case, J 2004, Segers et al 2008, Walsh A 2007), all of

which advocate the validity of this tool in assessment of student learning approaches. The

literature search discovered many examples of the usage of this instrument which has been

used in a variety of settings.

An example is Ramburuth and Mladenovic’s (2004) study involving 966 Australian

accountancy students. This study investigated the effect of learning approach on final

grades. Using Biggs’s (2001) questionnaire, an assessment of preferred learning style was

completed at the start of the course. This was matched to assessment data on completion of

the course. The study found that students with higher surface approach scores achieved

lower assessment grades. However, there was no corresponding relationship between a

deep approach and higher assessment grades, a finding of no significant difference was

recorded.



Theoretical work (Marton & Saljo 1976, Biggs 2006) suggests that teaching

environment is important. Consequently, researchers examined whether changes to

teaching practice could influence learning. In a longitudinal study involving 158 Australian

accountancy students (Hall, Ramsay and Raven 2004) participants completed a Biggs

(2001) SPQ on commencing a 3 month long course, repeating this at the end. Lecturers

introduced problem based small group sessions, designed to encourage students to adopt

deep learning approaches. The authors reported ‘small but statistically significant’

differences in deep approaches to learning and a decrease in surface learning approaches.

The study had a low response rate of 37% (158 out of 427 possible students) and the

longitudinal figures include people who completed the first but not the second questionnaire

and vice versa, a limitation which is mentioned but not commented upon in the study paper.

The study does not mention whether this made any difference to assessment scores.

A similar study (Struyven et al 2006) concluded that environment (in this case

assessment type) does not influence learning style and that it may also be impossible to

influence deeper approaches to learning amongst students. Struyven et al’s (2006) study of

790 Belgian students investigated the effect that different learning environments had on

learning styles. Five sub groups were exposed to differing teaching approaches (i.e. lectures

or problem based learning) and differing assessment (i.e. portfolio presentation, MCQ’s,

exam). The study concluded there was no evidence that student learning approach was

influenced by any of the factors studied. However, a finding was that it was easy to

inadvertently encourage surface approaches to learning if students perceived an over

burdensome workload.

Some have questioned assumptions about the desirability (or even the existence) of

‘deep’ as opposed to ‘surface’ learning approaches. Haggis (2003) has professed surprise

about the degree of uncritical acceptance of these ideas within Higher Education. She

argues that acceptance of this theory has minimised attention to alternative ideas about how

people learn. Haggis also makes a point that became quite apparent during an earlier review

of this material (Walsh 2008) - a great deal of research sets out to confirm existing theory.



Another criticism is that this model is epistemologically confused in that it combines detailed

statistical analysis of responses with what is clearly subjective and qualitative data. This

critique was also made from a phenomenographic stand point by Webb (1997) who

questioned the possibility of a lecturer making ‘neutral’ and objective observations about

student learning.

Other critics include Coffield et al (2004) who raised serious questions about the

basis for much of this theory. They concluded that the approaches to learning theoretical

model is over complex and inaccessible, as a result it could be misused and also criticised

the lack of attention to social factors in learning. Another criticism is that despite this theory

having had a great deal of influence in the preparation of newly appointed higher education

teaching staff it has little to say about how one might actually change practice.

Responding to Haggis (2003) critique, Marshall and Case (2005) conceded that an

over reliance on learning style theory was unproductive. They suggest that rather than using

this theory as an ‘absolute truth’ about learning it is better to consider it a ‘thinking tool’ – a

means of trying to look at teaching practice and student activity. The authors stress the

importance of studies being aware of context and socio-cultural considerations.

Reference to original material by Entwistle (1989) would suggest that wider

considerations may actually have been considered. Discussing the use of learning style

evaluations, Entwistle (1989) stated that this provided

“a language of concepts and categories through which to discuss more precisely teaching

and learning in higher education”.

Entwistle suggests that this work allows discussion of learning interactions, leading to

discussion with students about how they learn and might learn more effectively.

Another argument favouring qualified use of learning styles is provided by Rayner

(2007). Examining Coffield et al’s (2004) critique, Rayner agrees that over – rigid application

of this theory, where learners are given labels such as ‘deep’ or ‘surface’ – is a mistake. He

rebuts criticism that there is little consensus amongst proponents of learning style theory by

arguing that in common with any good teacher – understanding of pedagogy and individual



learning is a work in progress. Good teachers it is argued are constantly making and

breaking their own models of what is effective teaching practice. The fact that learning style

theorists disagree indicates that this area has developed by an empirical process of testing

and falsification. It is therefore, natural that disagreements become apparent. Rayners

conclusion is similar to Entwistle, learning assessments are ‘a tool and not an end in itself’ –

useful for helping educators to consider pedagogical improvements.

There was some evidence that student approaches to learning influenced use of e-

learning resources. In a study involving 95 Open University psychology undergraduates Jelfs

and Colbourn (2002) found some co-relation between ‘deep’ learners and positive

perceptions of e-learning. Students identified as ‘surface’ learners tended to complain about

time constraints and engaged less with online resources. This study found much stronger

co-relations between confidence of using IT and student perceptions of e-learning. Students

who were less confident at using IT were correspondingly less likely to positively evaluate e-

learning. The authors acknowledged that this was a small study and that therefore findings

could not be considered very widely relevant.

Another study was completed with 134 students in a US institution (Jordanov 2001).

This study used Kolb’s (1999) learning style inventory and a questionnaire examining

attitudes towards technology use. The study reported an association between an active

learning style and positive student attitudes towards e-learning material. Of 300 students

invited to participate only 134 (44%) actually participated. The possible effect of this

limitation is not acknowledged by the study, for example, did only the most engaged

students reply and what effect would this have on the study outcome?

A smaller qualitative study (Heaton-Shrestha et al 2007) of 43 students attempted to

examine the effect that learning style had on approaches to and use of e learning. The

authors found no evidence that e-learning made any difference to student learning style.

However, there was some evidence that students used this differently depending upon

individual learning style. Access was much lower, 45% of the surface learners used it

‘frequently’ as opposed to 82% of the deep learners. Deep learners were the only students



who looked at online resources in preparation for lectures whereas surface learners tended

to look at material after lectures as part of revision. The authors concluded that e-learning

was unlikely to influence learning approaches but that these approaches did influence how

students interacted online.

A study into student satisfaction with e-learning was conducted by Nian-Shing, Lin

and Kinshukc (2008). This Taiwanese research study did not look specifically at student

learning approaches. Instead, a consumer satisfaction questionnaire was used to study

attitudes amongst 230 (88% response rate) students. This identified four important areas

which influenced student’s views on e-learning. Course administration, ease of e-learning

use/ access, quality of educational materials and perceived quality of group and instructor

interaction were the most critical factors. Overall, the study recommends that IT support is

especially important to quality of e-learning experienced.

Another Taiwanese study reached similar conclusions (Sun et al 2008). This study of

295 students (45% response) attempted to identify the most critical factors which may

influence learner satisfaction with e-learning. Less emphasis was placed on factors such as

IT support and technical ability, the most important variable was perceived quality of

educational materials. The study concluded that perhaps students are now more comfortable

with technology use. The authors acknowledge however that this study is limited in that it

only examines satisfaction, there is no indication of the effect that use of this technology

might have on learning outcome such as course grades.

All of the above studies sought to investigate the possible effects of e-learning, such

studies are problematised by Clark’s (2001) critique of assumptions made in such studies.

As can be seen from the above review, there is little evidence to suggest that e-learning

outcomes are any different to other forms of learning. It is suggested by Clark (2001) that

this is because there is no difference between the two. Clark argues that instructional media

make no difference to student learning. What is important is teaching methods, it doesn’t

matter how this teaching is delivered any more “than the truck which delivers the groceries



has an influence on our nutrition”. Clark (2001) also argued that educational studies showing

an advantage to e-learning are methodologically flawed.

Finally, an interesting perspective was offered by Malcolm & Zukas’ (2001) review of

literature surrounding the general application of pedagogical ideas in higher education. The

authors concluded that the most dominant ideas were drawn from psychology. This

suggests that education is something that focuses upon the learner as an individual. The

authors argue that there is an assumption that students learn (or fail to learn) because of

their individual characteristics or because of the qualities (or failings) of individual teachers.

They argue that this approach ignores possible social, political, gender or class issues. An

attempt by Higher education managers to focus upon ‘knowable’ facts that can lead to policy

changes is suggested as a reason for this focus. A general review of the literature in the

current study reveals that all of it originates from a psychological view point and that this

would appear to be a valid criticism of this study.

Literature review: Discussion, conclusions and implications for study.

The literature reviewed in this study fell into several broad categories. Firstly, those

proposing student approaches to learning theories (Marton & Saljo 1976, Biggs 2006)

followed by studies which used these as a theoretical background. This was followed by

studies investigating possible links between student learning and use of e-learning

resources. The review concluded by including some ideas critical of learning style theory as

well as those defending these ideas. It is important to attempt to identify what (albeit

tentative) ideas can be drawn from this review and how these ideas have shaped the study.

Firstly, it is necessary to consider the criticism of the learning theory used as a basis

for this study. The studies covered in this review do correspond to Haggis’ (2003) critique

that they seek to (quite uncritically) confirm existing theory, possibly at the expense of

alternative understandings of learning. This fits with the argument (Malcolm & Zukas 2001)

that psychological ideas are privileged at the expense of other possible understandings.

Given that the introduction to this paper discusses the demographic changes in higher

education it would be a serious omission if aspects such as possible gender, race or age



differences were not considered. For this reason, survey data covering these aspects will be

specifically examined for indications of effects other than individual psychological factors. It

is also intended that the semi structured interviews should seek student views about what

they feel may be possible influences on their learning.

Other criticisms have been examined, especially Coffield et al (2004) who questioned

an over reliance on learning style theories. This critique was considered alongside

arguments advocating a qualified and cautious use of such work, especially as a means of

examining teaching practice (Marshall and Case 2005) as well as an aid to individual teacher

reflection (Rayner 2007). It was decided that for this study the implications were that

possible conclusions should be considered context specific, attempts to more widely

generalise should be done very cautiously. This is in any case a reasonable conclusion for

this study because the cohort size would not justify generalisability.

Theoretical work which laid the foundations of learning style theories (Marton & Saljo

1976, Biggs 2006) has clearly been influential. It has been widely accepted by Higher

Education institutions (Coffield et al 2004, Haggis 2003, Rayner 2007) and this paper has

cited several studies which use these ideas. Reference to these studies show that their

results and conclusions vary considerably. All of the studies appear to have uncritically

accepted the idea firstly that students actually have characteristic approaches to learning,

secondly that these approaches can be influenced by educators and thirdly that this is

something worth doing anyway.

Only one study (Ramburuth & Mladenovic 2004) tried to examine possible links

between learning approach and assessment score. Results suggested a negative

relationship between a surface approach and a low module score and no obvious

relationship between a deep approach and eventual module score. Another study (Hall,

Ramsay & Raven 2004) claimed to have influenced student learning approaches although

this didn’t go on to examine what difference this made to learning outcomes. Arguably, both

studies might be used to support Haggis’ (2003) critique that what is actually being promoted



is a traditional view of what learners should behave like – as there is little evidence that

outcomes are affected in any way.

There was some evidence that it is possible to inadvertently cause students to adopt

more ‘surface’ approaches to their learning. In an examination of the effects of assessment

type, Struyven et al (2006) concluded that they couldn’t influence students to adopt ‘deep’

approaches but in over-burdening students they had managed to encourage a ‘surface’

approach. Some work has focused upon the relationship between e-learning and student

learning approaches.

A ‘deep’ approach to learning was found (Jelfs & Colbourn 2002) to have some

relationship with positive attitudes towards e-learning resources, however, this study

concluded that confidence in using IT resources was far more likely to influence student

perceptions of e-learning. Similar conclusions regarding the importance of IT skills were

found in Jordanov’s (2001) study which used Kolb’s learning style inventory as a foundation.

Both of these studies acknowledged that a small sample size as well as poor study response

(Jordanov 2001) meant that only very tentative conclusions could be drawn.

Further evidence to suggest that e-learning materials do not influence student

learning approach was provided by Heaton-Shrestha et al’s (2007) work. In a conclusion that

had similarities to the findings of Struyven et al (2006) these authors suggested that

although e-learning doesn’t change the way students approach learning it does change the

way that they engage with it. This would also seem to fit with Marton and Säljö’s (1976)

study which concluded that students will engage differently with written material depending

upon the approach to learning adopted.

Quality of educational materials as well as factors like relative efficiency of course

administration and the relationship between students and teachers was found by two studies

(Nian-Shing, Kan-Min & Kinshuk 2008, Sun, P et al 2008) to be of greater importance than

learning style.



Finally, It has been argued (Clark 2001) that attempts to compare e-learning with

other forms of teaching are fundamentally flawed, all that is happening is that researchers

are comparing like with like.

There are several points from this review that need to be incorporated into the study.

• Firstly, the literature suggests that a deep approach to learning is a desirable

attribute amongst students and one that educators should try to promote.

However, literature accessed provides little support for this idea.

• There is scant evidence for an association between ‘deep’ approaches to

learning and good learning outcomes and some evidence that ‘shallow’

approaches may be associated with poor outcomes.

• Students who are stressed by being over burdened with work may adopt a

more ‘surface’ approach to learning.

• IT support and quality of teaching interaction may be as important as student

learning approach.

• Students with ‘deep’ approaches to learning may be more positive about e-

learning resources.

• E-learning materials do not influence student approach to learning but

approach to learning may influence how materials are used.

• Studies comparing e-learning to other teaching may be flawed.

• Possibly an over –reliance on individual psychological understanding of

learning at the expense of understandings from other areas – especially

social factors

As stated at the start of this section it is intended to show how the literature review

conclusions have been incorporated into the format of this study. In the next part of this

paper it is intended to clarify the research process adopted and to discuss the methodology

and underlying research philosophy of this study.



Research Methodology.

The research methodology adopted in this study is mostly qualitative in nature but in

an attempt to provide a thorough review of research questions asked there are also aspects

of quantitative methods. The overall research strategy adopted was a survey and methods

used to collect the qualitative data were questionnaires, a learning style inventory ( Biggs

2001) as well as a series of semi structured interviews. Quantitative data was also used to

help inform the survey, this was collected by accessing module assessment scores, as well

as data recording access of the e-learning resources. Quite clearly this is a mixture of

different and potentially conflicting approaches and it is intended to discuss and justify this in

the following section.

Underlying Research Philosophy

Before going on to discuss research methods to be used it is necessary first to

examine issues surrounding ontology and epistemology and the effect these may have upon

the study. It has been argued (Grix 2004) that ideas around these concepts provide the

basis for a study. This will influence subsequent decisions about research questions and the

methods used to gather and process information about these. This section will briefly

discuss these issues and attempt clarification about how these have influenced this study. It

is then intended to describe the methodological approach before going on to examine

strengths and weaknesses of the study approach as well as considerations of reliability,

validity and bias.

Ontology has been defined as outlining the system of beliefs that we hold about the

nature of the world and is concerned with beliefs (as well as the different positions)held by

people concerning the relationship between ‘knowledge’ and ‘reality’ (Smith 2003). An

important area of disagreement are the differing positions held by people concerning ideas

about objectivism and constructivism Grix (2004). An objectivist approach suggests that

social phenomena may exist independently, be measurable and comprehensible

independently of social actors. A constructivist approach differs by arguing that social

phenomena cannot be understood as something distinct from social actors, furthermore,



these phenomena are a product of social interaction and constantly being revised. Ontology

then, concerns what it is that we may know, and it can be seen that this will have an

influence on epistemology which is concerned with how we come to know about the world.

Epistemology can be described as the study of knowledge and specifically, possible

ways in which researchers gather knowledge about social reality (Grix 2004), clearly, our

views regarding this will be influenced by ontological beliefs. The questions that are asked

within a study are directly influenced by the underlying epistemological paradigms adopted.

For example, a positivist research position holds that it is possible to discover facts and to

deal with data which can be statistically manipulated to prove or disprove pre-determined

hypotheses (Kumar 2005). Alternately, phenomenology emphasises the importance of

subjectivity and the meanings that people give, recognising that personal values may

influence research processes (Denscombe 2003). In this approach, researchers do not

assume an objective stance to the research process and the idea that it is possible to

maintain an uninvolved and detached stance has been problematised (Grix 2004).

It is important to acknowledge the influence of ideas surrounding Symbolic interaction

to this discussion. The theory of Symbolic interaction suggests that external events and

interactions (‘the other’) are only comprehensible in terms of their relationship to ones self

(Denzin,& Lincoln 2003). This has had an influence upon the conduct of qualitative research

because an attempt to conduct ‘objective’ and uninvolved social research would be

incompatible with such a stance. It has been suggested (Bilton et al 2002) that the most

important feature of symbolic interaction theory can be seen in it’s influence on qualitative

research, especially where researchers attempt to understand a situation from the point of

view of it’s participants. It can be argued then that there are different ways of understanding

the world & gathering knowledge about it and therefore it is important to be clear about the

influence this may have on this study.

Because of the need to attempt understanding from differing view points the research

study design utilises a variety of data gathering techniques to produce a mixture of both

qualitative and quantitative data. This approach is described as triangulation by Denscombe



(2003) who argues that as debate has failed to establish the superiority of any one

epistemological approach this allows the researcher to compare and contrast information

gathered around a subject. As will be seen, it is intended to access numerical data about

student class attendance and also the number of times they access the e-learning

resources. This numerical data about quantity of student access is only partially revealing

because it gives no information about what the student actually does whilst accessing it, it is

possible for example to log on to the site just to see who else is doing so or to sit in class

and think of something else. Only qualitative data can possibly give an indication of

expressed student attitudes towards the e-learning resources but on it’s own gives no

indication of whether (if at all) the student ever accessed the material. For these reasons

then, this study will attempt to access a mixture of data sources.

Generalisability

The extent to which an attempt can be made to apply the study conclusions more

generally is an important issue. Silverman (2000) has stated that generalisability is an

important aim of quantitative research studies. Qualitative researchers tend to argue that

this paradigm rejects the idea of an external and objectively measurable ‘truth’ to be

uncovered and therefore only rarely try to make claims about the generalisability of their

research (Maxwell 1998). The tendency is to produce smaller scale and more subjective

studies that are applied to particular situations. Whilst this study is specifically intended to

inform my own teaching practice the conclusions will be shared with other colleagues. That

there are limitations to the extent to which the study conclusions may be generalisable will

be acknowledged. Whilst conclusions are intended to be applicable to and of use in my own

work it may be that in other areas this study will form no more than a platform for possible

future studies and reflection.

Sampling.

It was necessary to consider issues both around the group of students accessed and

also issues about sampling within this initial sample. Although it was decided to try and

access as large a number of students as possible it was clearly impossible to access all of



them due to the large numbers involved. Purposeful sampling(Maxwell 1998) is described as

a process in which a smaller group is deliberately selected as being partially representative

of the larger group. In this case it was decided to focus on one group taking a Diploma in

mental health nursing course module. This group was chosen because it comprises a larger

number of students who will be studying the course at the same time. The initial

questionnaires will be given to all of the group members and numerical data about their

usage of module e-leaning resources and module assessment scores will be accessed by

the study. Firstly, Biggs’ (2001) SPQ produces scores for respondents around three factors,

‘surface’, ‘deep’ and ‘achieving’ approaches. Secondly, the whole group will be given a brief

questionnaire asking about how they use e-learning resources at the University and whether

they think these are useful – as part of this, students will also be encouraged to add any

comments they wish about these elements of their course. Thirdly the numerical data about

course e-learning access frequency and course module score will be considered.

Silverman (2000) suggests that purposive sampling requires the researcher to think

critically about the parameters of the group to be studied whilst Denscombe (2003)

describes an advantage of purposive sampling as being the ability to ‘home in’ on

individuals, identified as being important to the research. According to Denscombe (2003) a

qualitative study involves a process of discovery (rather than testing of a hypothesis) in

which to some extent a sample is allowed to emerge depending upon earlier decisions. In

this study then, it is intended to select from within the group a selection of respondents for

semi – structured interview depending upon their responses to the earlier questionnaires and

information taken from quantitative data collected.

Strengths and weaknesses : Disadvantages of survey

As discussed above, it is intended to use a mix of both qualitative and quantitative

data to inform this study. A possible problem of this approach is that it inevitably increases

the quantity of data produced which will have the effect of reducing the available time to

process this, I have made the judgment that finding this extra time is necessary.

Reliability, validity and bias



Reliability in a quantitative study is an indication of the extent to which the research

methods used are objectively measuring some external phenomena and could be duplicated

elsewhere if necessary (Kumar 2005). This study will partially rely upon statistical data

around student usage of e-learning as well as module assessment marks but as discussed

above it is not expected that this data alone will suffice. Silverman (2000) suggests that

reliability in a qualitative study is more concerned with demonstrating how the process

adopted by an individual researcher led to the conclusions reached. It is therefore important

that data used as well as individual reflection upon this is made available so that if necessary

others can verify or question the process adopted.

Validity can be defined as the extent to which a research study actually measures

what it sets out to study (Silverman 2000). The same author also describes validity as the

degree to which one can be confident that research conclusions are based upon all of the

data produced and not simply that utilised selectively to justify a pre determined conclusion.

Silverman (2000) also argues that a means of increasing the validity of conclusions reached

is to employ a ‘triangulation’ approach to data. In this way a study which can demonstrate

that different forms of data gathered has been compared and contrasted can arguably be

shown to be producing more valid conclusions which, as discussed is the intended approach

of this study.

The use of reflection as part of qualitative studies is discussed by Boyd and Fales

(1983) who advocate the importance of qualitative researchers being able to develop

understanding but also being able to account for this development process. In this study

then it is intended to maintain a reflective journal in which it will be possible for a reader to

follow the process adopted, allowing a judgment to be made about the reliability and validity

of conclusions drawn. As part of allowing for external scrutiny it is also intended to make

available all of the data used in the study making it possible that others might examine this

and either agree or dispute conclusions drawn.

The meaning of bias can vary (Hammersley 1993) depending upon the

epistemological approach adopted by the researcher. In a quantitative study this is a



systematic error causing erroneous results whereas in a qualitative study it refers to a

possible tendency a researcher might have to interpret data in a more subjective way,

perhaps to confirm pre-conceived ideas. Discussing the management (in qualitative studies)

of potential bias issues (Maxwell 1998) argues that our past studies, beliefs and inclinations

have led us to ask the questions in the first place and it is neither necessary or desirable to

try and present ourselves as being impartial observers. Rather, it is important to

acknowledge these personal views and to make data used available as part of the abstract

so that it can be checked independently. As stated at the outset of this paper I have an

interest in the area of e-learning, arguably, it could be against my interest to produce a study

which concluded that our pursuit of e-learning was a waste of time. Whilst I have tried to

acknowledge this it has also been necessary to include data used in an appendix as well as

the reflective record of decisions taken which should enable another person to evaluate data

and make a judgment about conclusions reached.

Ethical considerations

It is intended that this study should be conducted with regards to ethical standards.

These have been summarised by Denscombe (2003) as ensuring that researchers have a

duty to respect the rights and dignity of participants, avoid harm and operating with honesty

and integrity. Ethical approval for the study will be sought from the Faculty of Education at

Birmingham City University (see appendix two)

Firstly, there is a need to ensure that participants are able to give voluntary informed

consent, Silverman (2000) recommends that participants need to be given information about

the nature of the research, and that they should sign to say that they have understood this. It

is intended that participants will be given individual handouts (appendix three) explaining the

research as well as having it explained to the group before being asked for their written

permission to be involved in the study. The need to consider possible harm to participants is

important because evaluation in a classroom setting can be perceived as a threat (Bennett

2003).



It is intended that for the purposes of writing the study all responses will be

anonymised with students not being identified by name and that during the course of the

study data will be kept in a securely locked cabinet. Denscombe (2003) discusses the need

for researchers to act within the spirit of the data protection Act 1998. In this case then

participants will be informed of proposed data to be collected and that it will only be used for

the purposes of this study. No data will be kept that is not for use in the study and as stated

this will be kept securely and not distributed to other agencies. As required by the Faculty of

Education ethical guidance the participants will also be informed at the start of the study

about their right to withdraw at any time.

Methods

Two separate groups of students commencing a third year module on the mental

health nursing Diploma and Bsc course were invited to participate in a research study.

Firstly, students were asked to complete the Biggs (2001) learning styles inventory to

determine their usual approaches to learning as well as a questionnaire asking for their

attitudes towards the e-learning resources encountered in their course. Data on student

access to the module e-learning resources is routinely available as part of the Moodle e-

learning platform as well as information about class attendance and module assessment

score. This information will be accessed and matched to individual students, a sample of

whom will be selected for further interview. The themes and questions covered by this

interview will to some extent be determined by the preceding questionnaires. It is envisaged

that aspects such as attitudes to use of e-learning, how well these resources influence their

studies and how these resources influence clinical practice will be discussed.

Earlier discussion and reflection has identified a variety of patterns of e-learning

usage. Some students don’t make use of these resources whilst others make frequent use of

them, it is intended to try and discuss these patterns with students. At this stage of the study

then data will be available about individual learning styles, attitudes towards and usual

behaviour in accessing e-learning, e-learning access and final assessment mark. This

information will be used to select a smaller sample of students for semi structured interview.



Semi Structured interviews.

The interviews were conducted to gather more information about how students felt

about their learning experiences. Analysis of these interviews is included in the findings of

this paper, this section aims to briefly discuss the justification for the structure adopted. The

format of semi-structured interview was decided in preference to that of a more structured

approach. Discussing these approaches, Oppenheim (2000) suggests that the purpose of a

less structured approach is to develop ideas rather than statistics. Up to this point, the study

has focused on gathering quantitative type data. As it is not intended to develop any further

such data it was necessary to identify an interview process that would access more

subjective information.

As well as seeking subjective material from respondents, the authors own influence

must be acknowledged. Although an attempt was made to reduce the author’s role in the

interview (as advocated by Oppenheim, 2001) it seems clear that this is only possible to a

limited extent and it was therefore decided to acknowledge and record author impressions

as part of the data collection process. The main disadvantage of the approach adopted was

that it produced a great deal of data. Because of time constraints it was impossible to

process a large number of responses and therefore the size of this part of the study sample

had to be restricted.

Firstly, a set of headings was decided upon around which the interview was based.

These are based upon the research questions identified at the start of this study. In

qualitative studies however, the focus of the interview and it’s analysis is an ongoing,

iterative process ( Sapsford & Jupp 2006). This is unlike a more quantitative approach which

sets out to either prove or disprove an initial hypothesis. Again, it was necessary to adopt a

reflective approach to data as it emerged which allowed for the process to be explicit to an

external reviewer.

Because there is a lot of data produced in an interview it was decided to use a voice

recorder. Participants were informed about this and given assurances regarding it’s use and



storage. Consideration was also given to location and timing of interview, in order not to take

up too much of participants time, interviews were kept to 30 minutes. It was also necessary

to ensure that the environment was comfortable and free from distractions.

Sample size was considered, ideally, each one of the 31 respondents would be

interviewed. However, time constraints dictated that a smaller interview sample be chosen. It

has been argued that the smaller a study sample, the less detailed and more generally

descriptive the eventual analysis should be ( Sapsford & Jupp 2006). Four students were

asked if they would agree to participate in the interview process.

Analysis commenced by transcribing student responses and then carefully reading

through these, making general notes about anything that appeared significant. For example,

It was especially important to try and identify similarities or differences between respondents

as well as anything that might be significant enough to justify including in future interviews.

The next stage involved gathering responses together into categories of data. These

categories were either suggested by the research questions, literature review or from ideas

that emerged as part of the initial reading of responses. At this stage the aim was to

generate as many categories as possible. The general intention was to form an overall

descriptive sense of the data, again, a reflective process was necessary to record and justify

decisions made. Following this process a set of analytical categories was developed – these

have been incorporated into the findings section and used to give form to the structure of the

conclusions to the paper.



Study Findings

The second part of this paper presents study findings before going on to critically

discuss these in relation to research identified in the literature review. As discussed in the

research philosophy section, a combination of quantitative and qualitative data has been

gathered. This data formed the basis of semi structured interviews which were conducted in

July/August 2009. The paper concludes by identifying study findings before ending with

discussion and conclusions.

Findings

The initial data collected was a likert scale questionnaire which also contained sections for

students to add comments. Attached to this was a Biggs SPQ (Biggs 2001). Data was also

collected about student’s e-learning access and module assessment grade. 31 students took

part out of a group of 43, a response rate of 72%. 13 of the group (48%) were White, the

largest other ethnic group was 5 students (16%) who described themselves as Black/Black

British African. As there were such small numbers of ethnic minority students no attempt was

made to analyse these separately.



Questionnaire Feedback: e-learning: access and attitudes.

Generally, students were positive about the module resources, 84% enjoyed this to a

large or some extent whilst 90% of the group agreed that Moodle enhanced their learning to

either a large or to some extent. 87% of the group felt that Moodle helped them understand

clinical practice to a large or to some extent (Appendix 4)

Everyone reported that they used e-learning, 87% of the students reported that they

used it either a lot (38%) or sometimes (48%). However, reference to the usage data

showed that four of these students are recorded as never having accessed this.

Assessment scores were compared to Moodle access figures to examine whether

students who used Moodle more gained higher marks than those who used it less. As can

be seen from the graph, individual student usage varied quite significantly, four students are

not recorded as having used it, average use was 78 times and the highest user accessed it

on 309 occasions. There was no relationship between Module use and module score.



Moodle use & Module assessment score comparison

050

100150200250300350

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31

Students

Moo

dle

use

coun

t

Moodle use

Module assessmentscore

Students were asked about where they accessed the e-learning resources and how

easy this was. Everyone reported some use at University although 13% reported that they

had a few difficulties. Students reported more problems at home, 6% of the group report

never accessing it there. Students had much more difficulty in clinical placement. Only 39%

found this either very easy/easy whereas the rest of the group had some difficulty and 19%

of them never managed to do this in a clinical area. Reporting on use at home (34%) and in

placement (47%) of the women said that they either found this to be ‘not easy’ or did not

access it at all. None of the men reported similar difficulties and only one found it difficult in

placement.

Age differences

The group aged between 19 and 48 years old, mean age being 29 years. Examining

the responses in terms of age suggested that older students use Moodle more frequently

and were more positive about this. The average age of those who used Moodle ‘a lot’ was

35 years, compared to 26 years for the ‘sometimes’ and ‘rarely’ categories. Younger

students were less positive when asked whether Moodle had enhanced the course and were

much less likely to state that they enjoyed using this (See below).



Moodle usage data from online records.

A feature of Moodle is the ability to examine records of student usage. It is possible

to examine whether students have enrolled in a particular course, how often they accessed it

and what they looked at. This study recorded participant’s usage of two Moodle sites

supporting the modules being studied, the Community Mental Health Care and Nursing Care

of Older People with mental health problems sites.

Only 4 students did not have any record of accessing the resources. The others

made 2418 visits between the modules start in April 2009 and the completion of the

assignments in 14th/15th July 2009. Timing of visits was also recorded, data was accessed

recording whether students accessed these during the module delivery (i.e. from 14.04.09 –

02.06.09) or from the end of the module delivery to the day of the assessment (i.e. from

03.06.09 – 15.07.09). Most hits (64 %) on the sites came before the assessment compared

to 36 % during module delivery.

Percentage of Moodle hits pre & post module delivery

36%

64%

36% Hits came during module delivery 14.04.09 – 02.06.09

Majority of hits (64%) in period after module delivery & before assessment i.e. 03.06.09-

15.07.09



Information was also gathered about which sites students looked at to see whether

timing of module assessment influenced access. One half of the group takes the older adult

mental health examination first whilst the others do the Community Mental Health Care

assessment. Access was much higher in modules being assessed first, students averaged

78 views each compared with an average 39 views for that module where assessment came

later.

Biggs SPQ data.

Students scored higher in measures of Deep approaches to learning except one

student whose surface approach score was 28 and deep approach 27.

2525252525262727272728282929293032333636363637373738383838

4347

2111

2130

162320

262628

192424

2926

1916

1921

3326

202626

202121

322617

15

0 20 40 60 80

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

Deep approach scoreSurface approach score

Deep and Surface approach scores were examined in relation to other variables such

as comparisons between SPQ score and assessment grade and Moodle usage. Deep

approach scores were plotted onto a graph and examined alongside assessment scores.

Assessment scores can be arranged upon a curve from the upper score of 95% to the lower



scores and finally the three people who did not complete the assessment. Corresponding

deep approach scores are plotted alongside the assessment score, these ranged between

47 and 25 (average 32). Examination of the graph suggests no association between the two

values.

Comparison of deep approach scores and assessment outcome

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Students

Ass

essm

ent %

Ass%DA Score

Surface approach scores were compared to assessment scores. Generally, surface

approach scores were lower across the group, ranging between 33 and 11 (average 22).

Again, the graph suggests no relationship between these values.

0102030405060708090

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Ass

essm

ent %

Students

Comparison of surface approach scores and assessment outcome

Ass%

SA Score



Student questionnaire comments and development of semi structured interviews.

As stated, students also added comments to their answers on the questionnaires, these

were broken down into 5 themes;

1. Moodle as a repository of learning resources.

2. IT issues.

3. Moodle and individual learning

4. Moodle and assignment preparation

5. Variable quality of Moodle sites.

Many comments mentioned the importance of lecture handouts or PowerPoint slides

on Moodle; students expressed annoyance if these were not available. It was suggested

that if students don’t have to copy lecture presentations this allows them to focus more on

the session. Another point was that lecturers and quality of the Moodle sites varied, some

were considered helpful, others not.

Many comments mentioned broken links or links that won’t open. Structure of Moodle

resources was a source of frustration, some students found this hard to navigate because of

poor signposting and design.

The format of the semi structured interviews was developed in response to reflection

upon issues raised by the questionnaire, the literature review and also the initial research

questions. It was intended that these interviews should help to develop a better

understanding of areas suggested by data accessed to this point.

Study data suggests almost no correlation with the Biggs (2001) SPQ and any other

data gathered. The literature review also concluded that other studies failed to find evidence

that study approaches affect learning. It was decided to ask individual students about their

usual approaches to learning, whether their approach varied depending upon circumstances,

what encouraged or discouraged their studies and whether they set out just to pass or score

a high assessment grade.

As most of the group accessed the e-learning resources a question was asked about

what they found useful. Questionnaire comments suggested that students especially valued



lecture handouts and PowerPoint presentations therefore a question was asked about why

this was the case.

Questionnaires suggested that students had difficulty accessing Moodle in University

but more so at home and especially in placement. Students were asked about access

difficulties and where they experienced difficulty.

The questionnaire revealed some IT related difficulties, either because of poorly

designed resources or because of lack of IT skills. A question was included which asked

about student IT skills and also sought opinion about how well Moodle resources were

designed.

Study data suggested that older students were more positive about Moodle

resources. Students were told about this finding and asked what they thought of this.

Students were asked whether the Moodle resources helped them to learn and also about

what influence this had on assignments.

It was also decided to ask students whether they thought that gender, age, ethnic

origin or social background made any difference to their learning. Finally, students were

asked about their relationships with their cohort group and what effect this had upon their

learning (see appendix 5)

Results

A random selection of four students was made, these students were contacted and

agreed to participate in the interview process. Material gathered from these interviews was

transcribed and studied, six themes were identified.

Study organisation.

Students referred to the importance of organising and structuring studies. They

described a process of exploring the subject before deciding what to focus upon;

‘I tend to gather all of my information together, whether it is Journals, books and articles. I see what is relevant and then do a draft before checking to see if I am on the right path’

In order to develop study structure, students use a range of tools. Each of the

students used online material, handouts, notes, and interactions with lecturers and other



students in order to decide what to study and to check that they were heading in the right

direction. There was no indication that students preferred any one learning resource but

used these equally and for the same purposes. Students mentioned the importance of

lecture notes, whether written in sessions, or on annotated handouts and PowerPoint slides

as being important to the development of structure and understanding of content.

Another reason for developing a structured approach to studies was the way in which

this helped them to manage demands placed upon them. Students made similar points

about the quantity of work they had to complete and the difficulty of doing this without

organisation;

‘Sometimes you do feel that you have got too much and it is all coming on top of you. I tend to look at it and break it down into smaller pieces and make it bite sized and manageable – rather than just going ‘oh I can’t, look at all this lot’

There was some insight into problems faced by older students and possibly also by

women. Respondents felt that younger students were less likely to complete much individual

study. There was some agreement that older students and women may be more likely to

have family responsibilities and would therefore have to more carefully organise studies.

One student said that family commitments meant that she would have been overburdened

with work from the very first day at University if she had not carefully organised her studies.

Interest and relevance.

Another theme concerned the way in which students approached studies.

Respondents agreed that they changed study approaches depending upon whether or not

the content of the module was considered interesting;

‘If something grabs my attention then I am interested in it and more likely to want to do it, if it doesn’t then it is boring and more of a chore

A subject was defined as ‘interesting’ if students could see its relevance to mental

health nursing practice. If this link wasn’t clear then students generally agreed that they

would take a different approach.

‘I do the very minimum that I think will get me a pass if I think it is not relevant to my being a nurse. If I think it is interesting and relevant then I go above and beyond what is needed’



Assessment.

Whilst perceived relevance is important to study approaches, students are also

influenced by assessment. Examination of the transcripts suggested that when students

were asked about how they went about their studies they often responded by giving answers

about how they completed assignments.

Study aids such as e-learning resources and written materials are scrutinised for use

either as guidance on what to study or to check that people are studying the ‘correct’

material. Moodle was cited as being useful precisely because (downloading a session

handout) it could help to quickly sign-post the right material to be covered

‘otherwise I end up reading the whole book and maybe not finding what I want, whereas with a handout it can help you find things’

Lecturer influence.

Students all mentioned the effect that lecturers had upon their studies. Tutors are

valued because they are seen to give a lead as to what will be assessed. Students try to

ensure that there is a shared understanding about this and worry if this is not achieved:

‘I thought I had some understanding, but the mark I got didn’t reflect that and it was really hard to understand why ..when I did go to see the teacher she just basically said I didn’t understand it but I thought I did’

Students said that lecturers were important because they could be asked about

course work and what to study. However, transcripts suggested that this might be a limited

view of the lecturer’s role; interactions with lecturers were an important influence. Students

agreed that subjects were made more or less interesting depending upon how lecturers

presented material. There was consensus about negative effects;

‘Take (module) for example, I was really looking forward to it, I thought it would be really interesting but they bored us all to tears - all of them. They just talked at us but they didn’t talk to us, and we gave up and basically just started talking to each other instead’

Another student said that the group would get restless if as sometimes happens, lecturers;

‘just stand in front of the class and read the slideshow to us, that is a bit dull because you might as well read that yourself and then bugger off’



Alternatively, lecturers can be inspiring, one student acknowledged that at times he

hadn’t been expecting to be interested but;

‘then you get a really interesting lecture and that changes your mind and you start enjoying it’

Group effects.

The students spoke positively about the effect of their group. Nursing students do a

common one year foundation course before completing two years in their chosen speciality.

Students talked about experiencing frustration within the larger first year groups, especially

mentioning concern about other student’s behaviour. Two students mentioned a first year

incident when a group were behaving badly in lectures. This led group members to confront

the perceived offenders. There was agreement about shared responsibility for classroom

behaviour;

‘..in the first year you got a group who just wouldn’t shut up in lectures but eventually people got fed up and told them to shut up’ Another theme was the effect that the group had upon individual learning. Group

members appeared to act as a shared memory when students were unsure about what was

required;

‘The group helps you, if you are struggling and unsure what to do, other people help you’

It was also reassuring to check if individuals shared understanding of course work.

The students mentioned the importance of social support and friendship as having

influenced their University experience. Another suggestion was that group interactions

encouraged students to broaden ideas;

‘..it is good that you have got a wide range of people that you can bounce things off and get other angles and things you wouldn’t consider otherwise, and obviously you have got other cultures within the group giving you feedback so I think that is fantastic’

Moodle and I.T issues.

Students reported Moodle to be helpful to their studies but preferred personal contact

when interacting with other students or with lecturers. Typical of this attitude was the

comment:



‘I am using it (Moodle) less when the module is on, I want to listen to the tutor and take notes’ When students were asked about what they used Moodle for they agreed that this

was more likely to be useful to them when preparing for assessments. Students used

Moodle to check assessment criteria and as part of their revision. It helped students develop

learning structure in conjunction with other reading, lecture notes and interactions with other

students.

It was recognised that Moodle could make these studies more efficient because it

helped to guide students in their reading

‘it is a good signpost to other reading as opposed to me just going off and potentially going in the wrong direction, I use Moodle as an overview and then drill down deeper into reading’ All of the students felt that they were confident and regular users of IT; however they

reported common access problems within placements. One student mentioned that they

were usually too busy to spend time accessing the computer. Students also experienced

difficulty in gaining permission to access NHS IT systems;

‘on all placements you need a network access from IT and it is a nightmare to access this. You send off forms and follow up with phone calls but you don’t hear anything’

This reduces access in practice meaning that students have to wait until they get home to

get online and use resources or contact University staff by email;

‘If we could get student email on placement that would be really handy and then we could email you with questions rather than have to write them down and email once you get home’



Discussion

This section will commence with discussion and acknowledgment of study limitations.

It will then critically examine and evaluate study findings in relation to original research

questions and literature review conclusions. The paper will finish by identifying conclusions

and possible further areas for study.

Study limitations.

The literature review may have missed important papers. Literature accessed has

shaped the structure of questions asked and data collected. If there were significant

omissions from this review then it is likely to have had a negative effect on the study.

Secondly, this study is based upon a small group of people. Although the response

rate was 72%, participants number only 31 people. Furthermore, the questionnaire feedback

section details the ethnic breakdown of the group. Because there were so few ethnic

minority students, the study did not examine possible effects of ethnicity or the behaviour of



overseas students, which must be considered a study limitation. Therefore, study findings

should be considered specific to this group of students. Any attempt to more broadly

generalise findings must be resisted. The main use of this study may be as a pilot for other

studies or as a starting point for discussion about teaching and learning.

As discussed above, this paper uses both qualitative and quantitative data. The

extent to which these approaches can relate to each other has been questioned. It should be

acknowledged that an element of creativity in how this is applied has been utilised. It is partly

for this reason that data is available as an abstract to allow outside scrutiny.

Finally, the authors own interests have to be acknowledged as a source of bias. I

have been involved in making e-learning resources within my Faculty. It is likely that I could

be considered biased. It is in my interest that these e-learning resources are successful.

Whilst I have tried to be honest about student responses it is possible that bias may have

intruded. Again, data gathered is to be found in the appendices allowing others to make their

own assessment of validity.

No attempt is made to claim that this paper describes an uninvolved and detached

study. The researcher is an integral part of what has been studied. It is to some extent, the

task of the reader to consider how far findings and conclusions have any relevance to their

own experience.

What are students usual approaches to learning?

The literature review identified theoretical backgrounds to learning approach studies

(Marton and Saljo 1976, Biggs 2006). These suggest that students adopt either a ‘deep’ or a

‘surface’ approach to learning depending upon their perception of the learning environment.

It is suggested that ‘deep’ approaches are associated with better learning outcomes, the

authors advocate that teachers can design learning that encourages such approaches.

These ideas have been widely adopted and are used to inform many higher education

teaching courses (Kember et al 2008).

In the current study, the participants completed a SPQ (Biggs 2001) to examine their

usual approaches to learning. The students scored more highly in measures of ‘deep’



learning approaches and less on measures of ‘surface’ approaches to learning. This study

found no connection between higher or lower deep or surface scores and any other variable.

However, elements of the semi-structured interviews did fit with some theoretical aspects of

learning approach studies.

The semi-structured interviews suggested clear links between student perceptions of

learning material and their subsequent approach. Each of the interviewed students stated

that their approach to learning varies. If a subject was interesting then students would study

more carefully, read more widely and enjoy the experience of studying. Alternately, if

material was considered irrelevant, students would seek to do as little as possible in order to

achieve a pass. In this case, mental health nursing students defined material as being

‘interesting’ (and therefore worthy of greater study effort) if they could clearly see its

relevance and utility in clinical practice.

Another similarity was found in Biggs (2001) description of a ‘deep’ approach to

learning. This suggests that learning is not a matter of collecting facts but involves the

student in developing personal understandings of material being presented. Biggs also

suggests that in a surface approach this understanding will be incomplete because students

have failed to fully integrate their understanding. The interviews clearly suggest that students

tried to construct their own understandings. They did this by exploring material presented to

them by lecturers and by reading handouts, presentations, books, journals and online

resources. This was augmented by individual note taking; students would use the lecturer,

online material and group members to check their developing understanding of material

accorded with others.

Student attempts to identify how best to pass the module assignment greatly

influenced study. Organisational benefits of deciding upon a structure to their study were

also credited with being an important part of the attempt to make the study workload more

manageable.

It was also clear that student interactions with the tutor were critical in terms of the

approach adopted. It was possible for a lecturer to inspire students about how interesting the



study material was. Similarly, if lecturers presented material in a dull manner or did not

involve the students in discussion then they would tend towards a strategy of working out the

minimum needed to pass. This fits with Biggs’s (2001) ideas because teaching context and

institutional procedures are recognised as influential in student motivation (or de-motivation).

It is therefore possible to argue that Bigg’s (2001) descriptions of attributes of deep or

surface approaches have some validity when applied to students in the current study.

Students adopted different approaches depending upon perceptions of learning

environment. They also tried to develop personal meaning and structure to learning as well

as adopting strategies that would ensure pass marks. However, apart from this, it was

difficult to relate Biggs (2001) theories to the current study, and questions are raised about

this.

Is there any association between student learning approach, individual patterns of e-

learning activity and final assessment grade?

Many studies accessed in the literature review utilised the theoretical work of Biggs

(2001) for example, Hall, M, Ramsay, A & Raven, J (2004), Heaton-Shrestha et al ( 2007),

Jelfs, A & Colbourn, C (2002), Jordanov, W (2001), Nian-Shing, Kan-Min & Kinshuk (2008),

Ramburuth, P & Mladenovic, R (2004), Struyven, K et al (2006). However, none of these

attempted any critique of underlying theory, which as Haggis (2003) has written, is a

common criticism of such work.

There was a great deal of apparent agreement that promotion of ‘deep’ as opposed

to ‘shallow’ learning approaches was a worthwhile aim (i.e. Ramburuth, P & Mladenovic, R,

2004, Struyven, K et al 2006). However, all of the studies failed to demonstrate a link

between learning approach and eventual assessment score (i.e. Ramburuth, P &

Mladenovic, R 2004, Struyven et al 2006), in the one study where this claim was made (Hall.

Ramsay and Raven 2004) it was restricted to ‘small but statistically significant differences’ in

deep approaches. There were significant problems with the methodological background to

this study and therefore it must be considered of limited use. Literature review analysis



questioned the research basis for approaches to learning theory, a conclusion supported by

this study.

This study attempted to develop a critical understanding of the theoretical

underpinning provided by Biggs (2001) through seeking to apply this in practice. Each of the

students completed a learning style inventory (Biggs 2001) which was compared to eventual

assessment score outcome, patterns of e-learning use and attitudes towards e-learning. It

proved impossible to identify any relationship between learning approach score and any of

the other variables examined.

This accorded with literature review conclusions that it questions the value of such

measures. In defence of these ideas however, it could be argued that students state that

once they decide a subject is interesting and relevant then they are likely to study more

thoroughly. If this is so then they must have a better grasp of the subject. Therefore, just

because the current study did not manage to record this aspect it may be wrong to assume

that it does not exist. A study which more specifically set out to measure this effect might be

more successful in recording different outcomes between high or low deep and surface

approaches?

The literature review also identified criticism of approaches to learning theory,

especially Coffield et al (2004) who questioned the theoretical basis of these ideas and

queried how these ideas might inform teaching practice. Rayner (2007) defended these

ideas by arguing that this theory might help educators to develop their own understanding of

student learning. However, at this stage in the current study it is difficult to agree that there is

any justification for spending time and effort in measuring student approaches to learning

using Biggs(2001) SPQ. Analysis of semi structured interviews suggests that students vary

approaches depending upon whether they found course work to be relevant to practice. This

has clear implications for teaching practice, however this conclusion would not have been

suggested by use of the SPQ and would seem to confirm Coffield et al’s (2004) criticism

about how this process might inform teaching practice.



Furthermore, as stated by Haggis (2003) it is possible that over reliance on these

theories distract attention from other ideas about learning, whilst Coffield et al (2004)

highlighted a lack of consideration of social factors. As a result of this discussion the current

study considered social factors which were found to be important.

Students agreed that their group had influenced their learning. This could have a

negative effect if others were disruptive and students had tried to share responsibility for

amending this. Students turned to their group for advice about completing assignments, to

gain reassurance that they had understood learning and to explore different ways of thinking

about the course. The group also provides friendship and informal support. Students valued

group interactions with tutors and resented being ‘talked at but not to’ by tutors. Clearly,

these are important issues and it seems reasonable to partly accept critiques raised about

the utility of approaches to learning theories as well as warnings about an over-narrow focus

on individual learning.

However, it could be argued that Biggs (2001) does consider learning to be a

function of the relationship between the student and the lecturer as well as the general

environment. Perhaps there is a need to argue that these ideas do recognise social factors,

albeit insufficiently.

What does Moodle course usage data show about individual and group patterns of

use on a particular module?

The literature review examined student use of e-learning resources, aiming to identify

possible effects upon learning outcomes. Only limited conclusions were possible.

Some of the literature suggested that learning approaches might influence

interactions and attitudes towards e-learning (Jelfs and Colbourn 2002, Jordanov 2001,

Heaton-Shrestha et al 2007). The first study (Jelfs and Colbourn 2002) identified a weak

relationship between deep approaches to learning and positive perceptions of e-learning but

much stronger links between I.T. skills and positive attitudes. Jordanov’s (2001) study found

an association between positive attitudes to e-learning and an active learning style (as

defined by Kolb 1999). Heaton-Shrestha et al’s (2007) study found no link between learning



style and e-learning use finding instead that ‘deep’ learners used e-learning to prepare for

lectures whilst ‘surface’ learners were more likely to use it to prepare for assessments.

In the current study it was impossible to identify any link between student learning

approach and e-learning use. Student’s use of these resources varied and there was no

relationship between learning style and frequency of e-learning access or attitudes towards

e-learning. However, general patterns were possible to discern.

Timing of e-learning access suggests that students are more likely to use these

resources when revising for assessments. When examining the total number of hits on both

of the Moodle sites it is can be seen that of the 2418 visits made by the group, 64% of these

were in the period before the assessment, compared to 36 % of activity whilst the module

was running.

E-learning usage was compared between two Moodle sites which support learning

on the Community Mental Health Care module and that used for the Nursing Care of Older

People with Mental Health Problems module. These are studied at the same time before the

group is split, one half doing the Community Mental Health assessment the other doing the

exam for the Older People module first. Student use of Moodle sites is nearly double that for

the module they are doing first. This confirms the idea that Moodle sites are used more for

revision than as sources of support for ongoing study.

Research completed by Heaton-Shrestha (2007) suggests that this is characteristic

of students who have adopted a primarily surface approach to studies. However, students in

the semi-structured interviews were suggesting that they preferred to interact with the

lecturer whilst the taught sessions were available and would only turn to online resources

once this was not available. Students placed a high value on tutor and group interactions,

being generally more positive about these than they were about online working. The next

part of the discussion focuses upon what was found about student attitudes towards the e-

learning resources.



What are student attitudes towards the e-learning resources accessed in their course,

what aspects do they find useful and what not, also how relevant to their future

practice do they consider these resources?

The literature review identified studies which examined student attitudes towards e-learning

resources. An example was the work of Jelfs, A & Colbourn, C (2002) who found links

between student learning approaches and attitudes; a student with a deeper approach would

be more likely to evaluate resources positively whilst those with more surface approaches

would find more difficulty. The current study found no indication of a link between Deep or

surface approach scores and any other variable. The study was more successful in

discovering student attitudes.

Quantitative data gained from questionnaires found that all of the students reported

frequent use of Moodle and that they were generally positive, having enjoyed using this and

that these had contributed to their understanding of clinical issues. It was impossible to

identify a relationship between amount of Moodle usage and Module score although there

was a possible relationship between student age and attitudes. Older students were much

more likely to feel positively about the online resources. This was surprising as it might be

expected that younger people would be more comfortable with I.T resources. This was

followed up in the semi-structured interviews where respondents generally felt that the older

group members might have more responsibilities apart from academic concerns. It was also

suggested that younger group members were more likely to spend their free time doing other

things than studying and that this could explain relative impatience with e-learning

resources.

Many of the studies accessed in the literature review reported IT skills and issues

around computer access to be significant (Jelfs, A & Colbourn, C 2002, Nian-Shing, Kan-Min

& Kinshuk 2008, Sun et al 2008 ). Generally, these researchers found stronger evidence for

the impact of technical issues on student learning outcomes than that of learning approach

theories. In the current study, there were very few references to poor IT skills, all of the

students taking part in the semi- structured interviews felt that they were confident I.T users.



However, there were access problems, especially in placement areas where only 39% of the

group found it to be easy to access computers.

This was explored in the semi-structured interviews and it became clear that NHS

data protection strategies cause significant obstacles to students who wish to use e-learning

facilities. All of these students described having to try hard to get permission to access the e-

learning resources despite finding this difficult. This in itself may be an indication that

students value the support that they get from the online material as they would arguably be

less likely to spend time negotiating access if they didn’t find this worthwhile. If the students

do value resources and teaching that is practice relevant it seems especially unfortunate that

computer access is hampered by these policies.

Finally, the literature review discussed Clark (2001) arguments that attempts to

measure effects of e-learning compared to any other form of teaching is flawed. Teaching

methods are important, it matters less exactly how this teaching is conducted. This study

suggests that students associated good teaching with better learning outcomes. When

asked about online learning they were largely positive, also, in terms of simply delivering

leaning materials (i.e. lecture handouts or PowerPoint presentations) students are as happy

to get these from the internet as they would be in class. However, analysis of the semi-

structured interviews suggested that contact with lecturers and other students was greatly

valued and there was no suggestion that they would willingly replace this contact with an

online alternative.



Conclusions

This study commenced with a discussion of e-learning growth both internationally

and within the authors own institution. Despite this rapid growth there was little evaluation of

how this might have affected student learning, especially in the author’s own area of mental

health nursing. The final section will re-visit the original questions, attempting to evaluate

how far it has been possible to answer them. There will also be an attempt to highlight areas

of further study. Conclusions reached here are not intended to be read as being widely

generalisable but refer to the authors own conclusions about this study within this particular

group.

Firstly, a research question was developed which sought to enquire about students

usual approaches to learning. The theoretical background chosen to investigate this was the



work of Biggs (2001). As discussed above, much work has been done using this as a

background and there have been serious questions raised about these ideas. In terms of this

study it would seem fair to state that this theory may have partly been confirmed by this

paper. However, it could be said this paper must also raise doubts about the utility of this

work.

Students appear to adopt different learning approaches depending upon

circumstances. Therefore, the original question which asked ‘What are the students usual

approaches to learning’ might usefully be amended to ‘in what circumstances do students

adopt more studious approaches to their work’.

The qualitative material gained from the interviews may have been revealing about

how students classify the work they encounter on the course. Students classify learning in

terms of its relevance and application to clinical practice. That which is considered relevant

is deemed to be interesting and therefore studied more closely, anything that does not have

such utility may receive only enough effort to achieve a pass mark. The descriptions of

‘deep’ and ‘surface’ approaches to learning as described by Biggs (2001) fit well with these

attitudes and therefore as an account of individual student approaches to learning this work

appears valid.

However, criticism of the theoretical basis for these ideas was discussed (Coffield et

al 2004, Haggis 2003) and the literature review also attempted some analysis of research

studies which had used this work as underlying theory. Literature accessed appears to

provide scant encouragement for the future use of this theory. It was also possible in to

question the methodological rigour of many of these papers. Studies produced insubstantial

conclusions and it was not possible to identify an example where use of these ideas had

improved teaching practice or learner experience.

Much data collected in this study was revealing of student attitudes and behaviour,

however, the study approach questionnaires completed as part of this paper were of limited

use. Other than to be able to state that most of this group scored more highly on measures



of deep as opposed to surface learning scores it was very difficult to discover how else this

data could be practically used by a teacher.

It seems reasonable to conclude that elements of Biggs (2001) ideas about student

study approaches provided a useful model for understanding individual student behaviour. If

they are interested and motivated, they will apply themselves to study more carefully.

However, the use of this to understand groups of students and to design class or university

wide policies is to be questioned. Furthermore, these ideas are currently being widely taught

as part of the preparation of new University Lecturers, to some extent this study would

question the validity of this policy.

Other aspects of the study could be useful in considering how best to work with

students. Firstly, students quite clearly suggested that they value good contact with

lecturers. Those teachers who interact well with student groups, who can listen to them as

well as being able to clearly link theory with clinical practice are valued by student groups.

Students are engaged in trying to develop a structured approach to their learning and

value the input of lecturers. Annotated handouts, presentations and online materials are

used as part of the process of making a structure that makes personal sense to students. It

is also important that the influence of the student cohort group be considered as this appears

to play a significant part in the student learning experience.

Another question concerned possible connections between student learning

approach and patterns of e-learning use to see what effect this would have on assessment

outcome. Data revealed no relationship or linkage of any kind between student learning

approaches, Moodle usage and assessment score. This failure to find a relationship may be

due to the small number of participants. If the relationship between these variables was a

small effect then it would require a larger study to reveal this. However, other studies

discussed in the literature review also failed to discover any such relationship, the validity of

pursuing this with a larger study must be questioned.

The third and fourth questions considered what could be learnt by an analysis of the

e-learning usage data available from the Moodle sites that support the taught modules.



Analysis of this data was supplemented with information taken from the final question about

student attitudes to these resources. This was obtained from questionnaires and was also

gathered in the semi –structured interviews.

As discussed, the literature review suggested that some studies have found links

between student learning approach and attitudes to e-learning materials. This study,

however could detect no such connection. Again, it must be acknowledged that if this was

only a small effect then a negative result may be due to the relatively small group studied.

However, analysis of other data suggested much clearer possible conclusions.

Group usage of the Moodle resources revealed that students are more likely to use

these after taught sessions have finished and in the period before the module assessment is

scheduled. It was also clear that given a choice between two module e-learning sites that

students clearly opt for the site which supports the module with the closest assessment date.

It may be that an element of these usage patterns is suggestive of students who are

assessment driven. They are not using resources to consolidate taught sessions preferring

instead to use them to support revision before an assessment. Alternately, there was a

suggestion that students may prefer direct contact with lecturers and with their cohort group

whilst this is available during taught sessions and only turn to the Moodle sites later as a

source of support.

Students were positive about Moodle, stating that this enhanced learning on the

course. There was some suggestion that older students viewed Moodle more favourably.

Student feedback about this point revealed a belief that this may be related to different

personal circumstances of the older group members whose responsibilities as home makers

and parents might necessitate different use of study materials. This may be an area that

would reward further study as data from this study around this point is limited. Similarly, as

discussed in the limitations section, this study also lacks detail about the experience of

ethnic minority and overseas students and again this would seem to fit with such a question.

The study found that students were confident about their IT skills but that IT access

issues remain a problem, especially in placement areas. Many of the students reported



access difficulties in placement. One student stated that there was pressure in placements to

be involved in the day to day clinical work, it was therefore impossible to spend time studying

in that environment. Other students reported access difficulties caused by NHS data

protection policies and firewall software. Apparently it is possible to overcome these

problems but only by persistent attention to bureaucratic procedures. Again, data regarding

this problem is relatively limited and this could also be an area that would require further

investigation. Ultimately, the issue of limited placement access may be something that would

require attention from the University authorities.

Finally, there was some discussion of the work of Clark (2001) who argued against

attempts to measure e-learning in comparison to other forms of learning. This study

suggests that students were unconcerned whether learning materials come to them from

handouts, books, journals or from any combination of online versions of these items. The

students did value contact with good lecturers as well as interactions with other group

members. The extent to which future University teaching might be acceptably conducted

online whilst retaining this personal contact may again be an area that would benefit from

further study.

In summary then, conclusions from this study are as follows:

• Students do tend to adopt different approaches to learning tasks. These are not fixed

traits but change depending upon their perception of the task. If mental health nurse

students perceive a task to be relevant to clinical practice they are more likely to

apply themselves more carefully to their studies. This conclusion has clear

implications for teaching practice when working with students on similar vocational/

professional courses.

• Students value interaction with teachers able to link theory and practice and who

involve them in sessions. This is credited with being important to student learning

quality.



• Whilst student learning approaches appear to be very similar to those described by

Biggs (2001), the associated SPQ revealed no usable data about student behaviour.

Its value as a tool to improve teaching is questioned.

• Students try to develop a structure to their learning in order to develop personal

meaning to their studies. This organisation also serves to help them prioritise and

manage a sometimes difficult balance between academic study, clinical practice and

home life.

• Students greatly value interactions within their group as these are a source of advice

and help to broaden thinking as well as providing friendship and support.

• Assessment is an important driver to student learning. Courses which are preparing

mental health nurse students would be more productively received by students if

assignment content is seen to be closely related to clinical practice issues.

• Students value e-learning resources, tending to use these as a means of preparing

for assessments as well as being a source of learning materials used as part of

structure development.

Possible areas of further study are indicated;

• This study found no relationship between scores on Biggs (2001) SPQ and any other

variable examined. This may be because the group was too small and that therefore

a larger study cohort may achieve more significant findings.

• The group size and makeup did not allow for consideration of possible study

differences of ethnic minority or foreign students, this would be a valuable area of

further study.



• The study suggested the possibility that older students and those with family

responsibilities engage differently with learning tasks. A further study to more

specifically examine these areas is suggested.

• Student experience of using web based learning resources in placement is clearly a

problem. This would suggest a need for further attention to this area in practice.

(NB Reference list is presented in two parts, firstly general references followed by references

for literature review.)

Reference list: General references

Bennett, J (2003) Evaluation methods in research London: Continuum

Bilton, T et al (2002) Introducing Sociology 4th edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Boyd, E.M. and Fales, A.W (1983) Reflective learning, key to learning from experience.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23(2): 99-117



Denscombe, M (2003) The good research guide: for small scale social research projects.

Maidenhead: Open University Press

Denzin, N & Lincoln, Y (2003) The Landscape of Qualitative Research; Theories and Issues.

2nd edition. London: Sage

DfES (2003) The Future of Higher Education London: HMSO

Grix, J (2004)The Foundations of Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

HEFCE (2005) HEFCE strategy for e-learning HEFCE accessed online <

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/elearning/strategy/ > 03.12.2008

Hammersley, M (1993) editor Educational research: Current issues. London: Paul Chapman

Publishing in association with the Open University

JISC (2009) Effective Practice in a Digital Age: A guide to technology –enhanced learning

and teaching. London: HEFCE

Kumar (2005) Research Methodology : A step by step guide for beginners. 2nd Edition

London: Sage.

Maxwell, J (1998) Designing a qualitative study chapter in Bickman, L and Rog, D editors

(1998) Handbook of applied social research methods London: Sage publications

OECD (2008) IMHE info : Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education

newsletter June 2008. Paris: OECD Programme on Institutional Management in Higher

Education.

Oppenheim, A.N (2000) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement.

London: Continuum

Sapsford, R & Jupp,V (2006) Data Collection and Analysis 2nd edition London SAGE

publications in association with Open University

Silverman, D (2000) Doing Qualitative Research: A practical handbook London: Sage

Smith, M (2003) Social Science in question. London: Sage publications.

Walsh A (2008) What primary research evidence exists into the use and design of e –

learning objects? : A literature review. PG Diploma. Birmingham City University.

Reference list : Literature review



Biggs, J (2001) The revised two-factor study process questionnaire British Journal of

Educational Psychology 71, 133-149

Biggs J (2006) Teaching for Quality Learning at University 2nd edition Maidenhead: Open

University Press

Burnett, P & Dart, B (2000) The Study Process Questionnaire: a construct validation study.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol 25, no1 pp 93 -99

Case, J & Marshall, D (2004) Between deep and surface: procedural approaches to learning

in engineering education contexts. Studies in Higher Education. Vol 29, no 5 pp 605-615

Clark, R (2001) Learning from media : Arguments, Analysis and Evidence. Boulder

Colorado: Information Age Publishing

Coffield, FC, Moseley, DVM, Hall, E and Ecclestone, K (2004) Learning Styles and

Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: Findings of a Systematic and Critical Review of Learning

Styles Models. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Entwistle (1989 ) Improving teaching through research on student learning chapter in JJF

Forrest (ed.)(1998) University teaching: international perspectives. New York: Garland.

Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into

‘approaches to learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal

29(1), 89e105

Hall, M, Ramsay, A & Raven, J (2004) Changing the learning environment to promote deep

learning approaches in first year accounting students Accounting Education 13 (4) 489-505

Heaton-Shrestha et al ( 2007) Learning and e-learning in HE: the relationship between

student learning style and VLE use Research Papers in Education

Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 443–464

Jelfs, A & Colbourn, C (2002) Do Students Approaches to Learning Affect their Perceptions

of Using Computing and Information Technology? Journal of Educational Media Vol 27, nos

1-2 pp 41 -53

Jordanov, W (2001) An examination of the relationship between learning style and

technology use. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the mid-south Educational



Research Association, Little Rock Arkansas November 2001 Accessed online <

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=tr

ue&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED460150&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&ac

cno=ED460150 > 08.07.2009

Kember, D, Leung, D. McNaught, C (2008) A workshop activity to demonstrate that

approaches to learning are influenced by the teaching and learning environment. Active

Learning in Higher Education 9. 43

Kolb, D (1999) Learning style inventory technical specifications Boston: McBer & Co

Marshall D & Case, J (2005) Approaches to learning research in higher education: a

response to Haggis British Educational Research Journal Vol. 31, No. 2, April 2005, pp.

257–267

Marton, F & Säljö, R (1976) On Qualitative Differences IN learning: Outcome And Process.

British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, pp 4-11

Malcolm, J & Zukas, M (2001) Bridging Pedagogic Gaps: conceptual discontinuities in higher

education. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol 6, no1, pp 33-42

Nian-Shing, Kan-Min & Kinshuk (2008) Analysing users satisfaction with e-learning using a

negative critical incidents approach Innovations in Education and Teaching International Vol

45, 2 pp 115-126

Ramburuth, P & Mladenovic, R (2004) Exploring the relationship between students

orientations to learning, the structure of students learning outcomes and subsequent

academic performance Accounting Education 13 (4) pp 507-527

Rayner, S (2007) A teaching elixir, learning chimera or just fools gold? Do learning styles

matter? Support for Learning. Volume 22, no 1 pp24 - 30

Segers, M. Gijbels, D. Thurlings, M (2008) The relationship between students perceptions of

portfolio assessment practice and their approaches to learning Educational Studies 34: 1 pp

35-44

Smith SN & Miller R (2005) Learning approaches: examination type, discipline of study, and

gender Educational Psychology,25:1,43 — 53




Struyven, K et al (2006) On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of

the teaching/learning environment Learning and Instruction 16 pp 279-294

Sun, P et al (2008) What drives successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the

critical factors influencing learner satisfaction Computers and Education 50, 118 - 1202

Walsh, A (2007) An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in the context of work based

learning Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 32:1, pp79-87 (Note- this is a

different Walsh, A)

Webb, G. (1997) Deconstructing deep and surface: towards a critique of phenomenography,

Higher Education, 33, pp. 195–212.

note on inclusion of dissertation - amazon web...

Documents