Psychology Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 140-141
Factors affecting students’ usage of virtual learning environments RACHEL ASHBY AND CHRISTINE BROUGHAN1 Department of Psychology, University of Coventry
This report considers the factors that affect students’ usage of virtual learning environments (VLE). In particular it explores students’ reluctance to engage in the interactive components of the VLE that are essential elements to the learning process. A study at Coventry University found that many students felt embarrassed to use the on-line facilities. In order for students to use the VLE to its fullest potential, it is suggested that students should not simply be expected to embrace this new form of learning without suitable support and guidance from tutors. Reasonable evidence exists to support the effectiveness of virtual learning environments in Higher Education (Davidson, Broughan, Dunn, Igo, Marchbank, Orsini-Jones and Gatward, 2000). However, this support is based upon the premise that VLEs adopt a constructivist approach to learning. Abdal-Haqq (1998) proposes that co-operative interaction is central to the constructivist theory of learning and therefore VLEs need to encourage interaction between the environment and the learner in order for effective learning to take place. Interaction can take place in the form of on-line activities, discussion forums and email. However, many previous studies have found that the interactive elements of VLEs are not well used. Bostock (1998) evaluated a computer-based media course and found that whilst most students reported talking face-to-face about the course, only 35 messages were posted on-line. The minority of students who did use either the email or online group activities reported them as being “effective help”. In a similar study, Collaud, Gurtner and Cohen (2000) examined the effectiveness of a computerbased course for psychology students. The cooperative support shown in this study was non-existent as none of the students reported using the email facility. There are therefore, valid reasons for concern when considering VLEs as a suitable alternative to more traditional methods of teaching and learning. A study at Coventry University was carried out to examine the issues surrounding the effectiveness of the interactive components of the VLE. By identifying the reasons why students were not engaging actively in the VLE it was hoped that more could be done to encourage better usage and consequently a deeper form of learning. A survey was carried out to investigate the factors affecting psychology students’ usage of the VLE. Ninety students completed and returned a questionnaire (31% of the undergraduate students at Coventry University). Questions addressed issues such as the extent to which the students used the VLE, whether they considered it a useful learning tool, their opinion of the feedback they received through the VLE and the level of embarrassment felt using on-line communication facilities. 1
Results showed that previous experience of VLEs was a significant predictor of the level of engagement between the student and the VLE. Furthermore, students that reported feeling embarrassed when using the interactive facilities engaged less than those who reported little or no embarrassment. The fact that previous experience of a VLE predicts current usage is something that has been previously well documented (Davidson et al., 2000). The finding that embarrassment is a factor that significantly affects engagement is worthy of further consideration. Broughan’s (2000) research into why students attend lectures and seminars revealed that many students reported ‘meeting other students’, ‘peer interaction’, ‘asking questions’ and ‘retrieving information from other students’ as their main reasons for attendance. In support of this finding, Bostock (1998) reported that students talked face-to-face about their course but very few students proactively used the on-line communication facility. Such responses suggest that students actively engage in face-to-face co-operative support, so why is there a reluctance to engage in online interaction? Furthermore, many of the students in the present study reported participating in Internet chat-rooms. A significant difference between VLEs and chat-rooms is the anonymity of the participant. It may be that the idea of posting questions or viewing opinions in such a formal manner to peers is a source of embarrassment. Furthermore, some students felt an unwillingness to share ideas with peers that may favour others in assessment. So, what can be done to encourage better use of the interactive elements of the VLE? Firstly, it may be worth considering the size of the groups involved. Smaller groups may make the individual feel less embarrassed and encourage them to share ideas. These smaller groups may then be able to post their collective ideas to the entire cohort. This way, ideas have been ‘verified’ and ‘approved’ by a small number of students who then take collective responsibility for their contributions. Students may also benefit from more guidance in initiating on-line discussion and this could be provided by the tutor. Tutors could supply initial arguments, which could be ‘faded out’ when the students had become more familiar with the nature of
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the Christine Broughan at: Psychology Subject Group, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB. Email:
[email protected]
140
STUDENTS’ USAGE OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS on-line discussions. This may encourage the students to become more active in on-line debates. The current research demonstrates that we simply cannot expect students to actively engage in the VLE. Students need to be educated and encouraged to embrace this new method of teaching and learning effectively in order to achieve their fullest potential.
REFERENCES Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those who would link practice to theory. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education: Washington, DC. Bostock, S. J. (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: A Case Study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 225-240.
Broughan, C. (2000). Learning and teaching in higher education. Unpublished Paper. Department of Health and Social Sciences, Coventry University. Collaud, G., Gurtner, J. L. and Cohen, P.F. (2000). Design and use of hypermedia system at the University level. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 137147. Davidson, A., Broughan, C., Dunn, O., Igo, S., Marchbank, J., Orsini-Jones, M. and Gatward, R. (2000). How to win with WebCT! A cross-disciplinary evaluation of students’ interaction with WebCT. Paper presented at the ELATE Conference (June), Coventry University. Manuscript received on 28 January 2002 Revision accepted for publication on 6 September 2002
141
