Investigating the possibilities for online delivery of a ... - Ingenta Connect

Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning Volume 14, Number 3, Winter 2012/13

ISSN: 1466-6529

Investigating the possibilities for online delivery of a successful campus-based pre-entry programme Stephanie Mckendry Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Email: [email protected]

Abstract Over several years at a widening-participation institution, a successful pre-entry programme was developed to provide a diverse body of nursing students with the academic skills necessary for higher education (HE) transition. Restructuring and financial constraints led to the cancellation of the programme in 2011. This paper will report on research that aimed to evaluate the campus-based initiative and investigate the potential in developing an online/blended alternative. As well as conducting interviews with participants and academic staff, a web-based learning development and peer-support blog was published and evaluated. Designed to provide support to new students undertaking clinical placements and completing assessments, the project was considered a ‘pilot’ for the provision of online academic skills support. The findings of both strongly suggest that opportunities to replace campus activities with blended versions are limited and, indeed, anathema to certain learners. Thus, inclusivity may be threatened and diversity potentially curtailed within the discourse of blended learning. Indeed, assumptions of digital literacy, the narrative of digital natives and the prioritising of reductive technology-enhanced learning may disenfranchise some learners. Key terms: pre-entry; transition; learning development; technology-enhanced learning.

The research problem – transition and pre-entry support Many in HE have assumed that their students will arrive with the necessary academic skills in place. In addition, it has been common to separate academic skills from mainstream course content and ‘diagnose’ certain students as problematic. Research suggests that these assumptions are inappropriate and ineffective. A ‘golden age’ of the relatively homogenous student body entering higher education with developed study skills seems unlikely to have existed (Gourlay, 2009). In any case, increased diversity means it is no longer possible to assume the level and prior experience of learning of incoming students (Haggis, 2006). 216


ISSN: 1466-6529

There is ample evidence to indicate that increasingly heterogeneous student populations can present challenges to retention (Leathwood and O’Connell, 2003). A greater number of students now enter study through ‘non-traditional’ routes with a diversity of qualifications, personal circumstances and expectations. Many have no recent experience of formal education and may have no family tradition of university, perhaps leaving them bereft of the cultural capital other students enjoy (Vryonides, 2007) or alienated by the unfamiliar institutional ‘habitus’ (Thomas, 2002) and thus more vulnerable to withdrawal and academic failure (Packham et al., 2004, Askham, 2008). Furthermore, research suggests that students can often begin university with unclear or unrealistic expectations, something that can impact strongly on their ability to engage with their programme and integrate into academic life (Ozga and Sukhnandan, 1998; Lowe and Cook, 2003; Fitzgibbon and Prior, 2006; Carnell, 2007; Ramsden, 2008). The transition period is therefore key (McInnis, 2001; Thomas, 2002; Leese, 2010). Pre-entry activities are vital in clarifying expectations and smoothing transition. The student population at the university involved in the study is particularly heterogeneous, but for nursing, this diverse demographic picture is further nuanced, since many students have caring responsibilities and a far greater proportion are female (86% in 2010/11). There are varying routes to entry, including the recognition of prior experience (GCU, 2009), and thus a high percentage of adult returners and those with little knowledge of higher education. Mature students often appear to find the journey into and through a nursing degree problematic (O’Brien, Keogh and Neenan, 2009; Cuthbertson et al., 2004). For women, a return to education can threaten or disrupt relations with family members and friends as they gain a new identity (Baxter and Britten, 2001), and there is evidence that male partners may struggle to adjust to the new situation (Stone, 2008). Socio-economic or class factors also appear to have an impact upon transition into higher education (Reay, 2002). Like many others, nursing students must successfully balance their personal, work and study commitments (Glossop, 2001) and financial difficulties can precipitate withdrawal (Glossop, 2002; Last and Fulbrook, 2003, Rochford, Connolly and Drennan, 2009). The demands of a nursing course differ from other subject disciplines, however. Students must acclimatise to both the university and clinical learning environments, often in a very short period of time (Carr, 2005;Andrew et al., 2008) and the experience of placement can be pivotal (Bouden, 2008) and stressful (Steele et al., 2005).

studySMART for Nursing Week Given what was known about the potential challenges for this group and in order to prepare nursing students for their transition into HE, a four-day programme of activities was planned to introduce students to their academic school and 217


ISSN: 1466-6529

programme of study. Both the research project and the programme were coordinated by two Academic Development Tutors embedded within the School of Health and Life Sciences, staff on academic contracts with a learning development and educational research remit. Throughout the week, the theme of ‘Spirituality in Nursing’ was used to tie subject content to academic skills sessions, linking the topic of the lecture students attended to the academic paper they were given to critically evaluate and the tutorial session in which they participated. In addition, existing students were recruited to help facilitate discussion and share their experiences of study within the School. The intention was to provide aspiration and confidence raising activities within a professionally orientated, discipline-specific environment. Thus, all academic skills teaching was undertaken using a healthcare context. The programme first ran in summer 2009, with a total of 66 students attending, and again in 2010 with 92 students. Each year, the programme was oversubscribed and exceptionally well evaluated. There was little time, however, for a thorough examination of the programme’s effectiveness over the longer term, and there were issues of equity to consider – not all students who wished to, could attend; were some being unfairly disadvantaged? When funding constraints and institutional restructuring led to the possible cancellation of the programme in academic year 2010/2011, it seemed the ideal opportunity to investigate its impact and potential future form. The research aimed to consider two main questions: 1. Was the current pre-entry programme effective in easing the transition of new students? 2. Given possible cancellation, and considerations of equity, was it possible to replace the campus-based version with a blended or wholly online programme?

Methodology and research design The principles and theory of action research underpinned the project and informed the research design. As distinct from more positivist methods of enquiry, action research is cyclical and reflective. Participants examine their own practice within context, with the aim of improving its effectiveness and justice (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007). As a method it has been usefully applied to both the research and subsequent improvement of healthcare education (Hodgson, May and MarksMaran, 2008). In order to gather the richest data, as well as to allow for the development of learning materials, activities and their evaluation – the action element of the cycle – a mixed-method approach was utilised. The project consisted of four distinct iterations, each of which was informed by the previous phases.

218


ISSN: 1466-6529

Figure 1: Diagram of the action research design of the project Phase 1. Design, plot and evaluation of academic writing support for distance students

studySMART for Nursing programme

Leads to development of research instruments for phase 3

Phase 2. Collation and analysis of quantitative data set) first diet results of pre-entry week participants)

Phase 3 Amended studySMART for Nursing programme

Blended elements?

Semi structured interviews with key staff involved in provision of academic wriitng support

Revised formative assessment?

Semi structured interviews with key staff involved in teaching first year student nurses

Phase 4. Semi structured interviews with students

As the second research question concerned the possibility of using new learning environments, phase one of the project involved the development, piloting and evaluation of online academic writing support materials for first-year nursing students. The experience of supporting students in an online environment would provide data and evidence for extrapolation to the pre-entry programme. Phase two involved the collation and analysis of performance data for the two years the pre-entry week has taken place. This was an attempt to determine whether progression and performance varied between those students who attended and those who did not. The results of these two activities allowed for the design of research instruments for phase 3, semi-structured interviews with two sets of key staff: two colleagues with a wealth of experience in providing academic skills support and the leaders of the two modules that nursing students undertake on joining the programme. The results of this phase informed the final one: semi-structured interviews with student attendees. This multi-stranded approach was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the activities from as many perspectives as possible, gathering the views of student participants, staff members who subsequently worked with the students and experts in academic writing support and blendedlearning environments.

219


ISSN: 1466-6529

Phase 1 – the design, pilot and evaluation of a learning development blog It was not possible to design and pilot pre-entry activities using different learning environments during the timescale of the project. Thus, an alternative group of students and learning situation was sought. Instead, a placement blog was developed and targeted at first-year nurses on the larger of the two undergraduate programmes. These students began a clinical placement in November, six weeks after the start of their programme, and had coursework to submit during this time period. The students involved would be learning off campus. Any activities would, therefore, have to be accessible at a distance. Thus, there were similarities with those students who would like to participate in pre-entry activities but are unable to attend in person. The fact that learners would be geographically distant from the campus precluded the use of face-to-face activities, suggesting instead engagement with technologies and the provision of online support. The concept of ‘technologyenhanced learning’ (JISC, 2009) remains somewhat undefined and problematic (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005) but, in essence, refers to the rapidly expanding use of technology for learning in higher education. Research suggests that such use has become an expected element of the academic experience of learners (Kim and Bonk, 2006; Kamel Boulos and Wheeler, 2007; JISC, 2009). It has been suggested that online learning and teaching provides opportunities for self-directed learning (Hilton, 2006, Bach, Haynes and Lewis, 2007). A recent meta-analysis of research on online learning, for example (Sitzmann et al., 2006), argued that there may be distinct advantages inherent within the environment. It found that asynchronous discussion facilitated in-depth conversations, offered learners the ability to progress at their own pace and had comparable learning outcomes to classroom teaching. The most successful learning, however, involved a blend of online and face-to-face environments. Others argue that there is nothing intrinsic in the character of online environments that would provide greater opportunities for learning (Clarke, 1994; Oliver and Trigwell, 2005). Thus, the effectiveness or otherwise is determined by the theoretical foundations and design of learning activities: ‘pedagogy rather than technology should drive decision-making’ (JISC, 2009:9). Since the resource was to provide timely, remotely accessible materials as well as potentially creating a sense of institutional belonging for students while in the clinical area, the use of a weblog (blog) or online journal was chosen as a suitable media. The web address was publicised widely to first-year students immediately before placement, and the blog was housed on a university server that was accessible to anyone with the URL. Blogs are used increasingly in education to encourage students to engage in reflection and analysis (Ferdig and Trammel, 2004), to offer agency to authors and contributors (Pachler and Daley, 2009) and to engage 220


ISSN: 1466-6529

students at risk of isolation (Dickey, 2004). They allow for posts to be added at regular intervals with links to uploaded and external content and have the facility for readers to post responses. Alongside the academic writing support materials, and in order to encourage peer support and socialisation amongst the placement students, seven senior students were recruited to write ongoing reflective accounts of their placement experiences. The learning development materials were designed in collaboration with module leaders and drew on models of good practice and pedagogical design such as Salmon’s (2002, 2004) stages of development of e-learning and ‘e-tivities’. Literature on timeliness and relevance in technology-enhanced learning were also considered (Beetham, 2008;Thorpe, 2000). In addition, a number of learning objects were created to cover the same academic skills. This variety of resources would hopefully allow students to discern variation in the critical aspects of the subject matter. According to Marton and Trigwell’s (2000) variation theory of learning, the greater the blend of learning objects with the same critical dimensions, the more opportunities for student discernment of those differences and, hence, ability to extract meaning. Thus, the same topic of referencing and paraphrasing was covered in a video discussion, a text-based explanation and examples, and a blog post. Students were given the opportunity for repetition, discernment of variation and, hopefully, learning. Between mid-November 2010 and mid-January 2011, the blog received over 1,600 hits, with views of the video material totalling 470. To evaluate student views of the resource, a paper-based questionnaire was distributed during tutorials in December 2010. 54% of respondents replied that they had accessed the blog. Of the 110 students who had, 85% assessed it as either useful or very useful; 68% agreed that the academic development materials helped them complete their assessments; and 70% said that the student contributions improved their understanding of the placement experience. A large number of students had accessed the blog. However, nearly half the cohort had not and very few engaged in an interactive manner. Many of the learning activities and student blog posts specifically requested students to post replies, answers and responses. Less than 20 responses were produced. From the lack of student participation one could infer that the blog failed to provide academic writing support. There is research evidence to suggest that purely online learning is largely ineffective (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005). Yet, the pilot was successful in terms of the number of students who accessed materials and student feedback. Many engaged with the blog but it is not possible to determine the level of that engagement. Certainly interaction was extremely limited. This may well link with Peters’ (2001) analysis of distance learning. He distinguished between the pedagogical distance between learners and tutors and the geographical distance. In the latter, the pedagogical space could be relatively small – a tutorial could take place between two people using telephones for example. However, 221


ISSN: 1466-6529

with some pedagogical approaches, such as lectures, the distance was potentially large because of the infrequency of interaction. It matters little whether students are immediately in front of a lecturer as they deliver material or whether it is broadcast in some other form. Since interaction was so limited, perhaps those learning objects that were most didactic or information transmission-based, such as assessment guidelines podcasts, were the most suitable for the circumstances. Those that required interaction, such as a paraphrasing activity, perhaps required a more blended approach that allowed an intensity of interaction between the learner and tutor. The blog certainly provided flexibility – students could access learning objects and student-written posts whenever they wished and as often as they wished. Furthermore, support was provided in a blend of formats. This accommodated any learner preferences, styles and even intelligences (Honey and Mumford, 1992; Fleming and Mills, 1992; Gardner, 1984). Critics argue that these concepts are reductive and without empirical evidence (Atherton, 2011, Pashler et al., 2008). Yet, there is obvious pedagogical value in providing materials that cater for even slight preferences towards auditory or visual methods of learning, for example. Whether a similar format is suitable for use with pre-entry students is debatable. The students targeted by the blog were already engaged with their programme and the institution. They might, therefore, be assumed to be more confident and willing to use materials than newer students, yet engagement remained relatively limited. Indeed, it may be that new students have yet to develop the necessary independent learning skills to learn in online environments (Kearsley, 2002). Literature on student retention, expectations and preparedness also suggests limited opportunities. Online pre-entry sites have been developed to foster socialisation, and increasingly, social networking technologies have been harnessed in the educational sphere (Mason and Rennie, 2007). However, the placement blog’s socialisation elements – the student bloggers’ contributions – although well evaluated also failed to draw interactions and responses. The institution’s own Facebook ‘welcome’ site failed to garner any posts on its discussion board during the latest student intake (GCU, 2011).

Phase 2 – the collation and analysis of quantitative data While the pre-entry week was primarily intended to smooth transition and ease anxieties, a further potential benefit to both students and the institution is that those that attend progress successfully. A quantitative analysis was conducted to determine the academic performance of attendees. For comparative purposes, the first diet assessment results on the first nursing module for each programme (Bachelor of Nursing – BN, and BA (Hons) Nursing Studies – BANS) were 222


ISSN: 1466-6529

gathered for both years the pre-entry week had taken place. Mean results and pass rates were investigated to discover if there were any differences between groups. Table 1: First diet assessment results comparison – mean score Programme: Mean Score BN2009

BN2010

BANS2009

BANS2010

Pre-entry week

56

55

48

50

Non pre-entry week

52

55

46

47

Table 2: First diet assessment results comparison – pass rate Programme: Pass Rates % (Score ≥ 40) BN2009

BN2010

BANS2009

BANS2010

Pre-entry week

90

90

80

82

Non pre-entry week

86

90

79

79

Formal analysis of the quantitative data was undertaken by way of a two sample t-test comparing the mean scores of all attendees with all non-attendees, collapsed across programmes. No statistically significant differences were found (t1226 = 1.37, p = 0.172). This could be explained by the limited size of the summer school dataset. Longitudinal tracking of achievement of these cohorts as they progress may provide greater scope for analysis. Another method of statistically examining the effectiveness of the programme may be to continue collecting first module, first diet results for subsequent attendees. Thus, further work is required in order to gather meaningful data. Simple examination of the descriptive statistics shows a trend for greater academic achievement on the part of pre-entry students, although the effect size appears relatively small. Those students who attended the pre-entry weeks did as well as, but more often than not better than, those who did not. Attendance was voluntary and, therefore, the summer school group were self-selecting. They may have been more likely to achieve academically due to their motivations, work habits, etc., rather than as a result of attendance. Longitudinal collation of progression and performance data would, hopefully, reveal how attendees performed in comparison to the general cohort but could never determine any causality where differentials were found. The difficulties of quantitatively evaluating the efficacy of support interventions such as these are manifold and well documented (Centre for Higher Education Research and Information, 2010). Thus, it appears the richest data analysis lies in the quantitative approaches the project employed in later phases.

223


ISSN: 1466-6529

Phase 3 – staff interviews In order to assess the impact and effectiveness of the current pre-entry curriculum and consider the possibilities for development, two sets of academic staff were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The first group were experienced in providing academic writing support. They were asked to consider their experiences of various learning environments and teaching strategies. The second interviews were with the two members of academic staff with responsibility for the first modules nursing students undertake. They were asked for their views on the design and effectiveness of the week as well as their insight into students’ level of preparedness and the kind of academic skills support they require. Interviews were recorded and verbatim transcriptions produced. A grounded theory driven thematic analysis of the data was employed to determine categories and patterns (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, Edgeley, Timmons and Crosbie, 2009). As each group was asked different questions, each group was analysed separately.

Findings Group one: Both interviewees were experienced in providing academic support to learners in a variety of formats. They made strikingly similar observations on the efficacy and opportunities presented by different learning environments. Both divided their non-face-to-face teaching into two. First, they felt that the provision of online material and support was useful but should be limited to aspects of teaching that were transmission-based, the giving of declarative knowledge. Distant learners failed to engage in interactive activities in groups. Thus, the format was best reserved for certain pedagogical strategies only, more ‘teacher-focused’ ones (Prosser and Trigwell, 1999). This observation appears borne out by the results of the blog and Peters’ (2001) theory of distance learning. The second non-face-to-face teaching they undertook was much more interactive. However, crucially for both, this was always on a one-to-one basis: working with a single student, over time, whether by telephone or email to develop their academic skills and writing abilities. Both felt it was more difficult to develop a rapport, relate the learning issue to a student’s wider context or expand discussion for greater skills development compared to face-to-face teaching. The participants were also in agreement that the pre-entry week would lose value if elements were replaced by online activities. A blend might enhance current provision but could not replicate it. Group two: Both staff members interviewed believed that the curriculum design of the programme was effective in preparing students for study. Pre-entry activities were essential since time and resource constraints meant it was rarely possible to

224


ISSN: 1466-6529

teach academic skills sufficiently during the trimester. One staff member reflected on the self-selecting nature of the students who attended: were they by their nature more motivated and thus better able to cope with the demands of higher education? The interviewees strongly believed that a sizeable group of students entered their programmes each year unprepared for learning at university. They offered strikingly similar views on the nature of this disconnect; it was less to do with specific academic skills than the nature of learning in higher education, and a lack of understanding of what was expected of students as independent learners. Finally, both staff members were in agreement that blended learning environments could be successful in teaching academic skills but only if there was a significant element of face-to-face contact. If not, and in their own experience, students would fail to engage. The staff interviews validated much of what was learned from the first phase regarding the potential use of online or blended learning environments in the development of the pre-entry week. Staff felt face-to-face provision was essential to facilitate socialisation and familiarisation. They also suggested that teaching strategies failed to be student-centred, and hence lacked activity and engagement, when group-based but distant. This sentiment is echoed within the literature (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005).

Phase 4 – student interviews During February 2011, students who had attended pre-entry weeks were emailed an invitation to discuss their experiences. Eleven students responded and it was possible to arrange semi-structured interviews with seven. All had attended the preentry week in summer 2010 and were now midway through the second trimester of their first year. The students were from both programmes and represented all nursing fields from which students had participated. They were, therefore, not unrepresentative of the pre-entry cohort and the undergraduate nursing population in general. However, a greater proportion of the interviewees were adult returners. Table 3: Characteristics of student interviewees Code

Programme

Year of birth

Fee status

Nationality

1

Adult Nursing

1975

Home

UK

2

Mental Health

1981

Home

UK

3

Adult Nursing

1963

EU

Bulgaria

4

Adult Nursing

1977

Home

UK

5

Child

1962

Home

UK

6

Mental Health

1978

Home

Zimbabwe

7

Adult

1973

EU

France

225


ISSN: 1466-6529

The students were asked to consider the extent to which the pre-entry curriculum had prepared them to become independent learners, their views on the teaching strategies, assessment and feedback employed and how they would feel if different learning environments were developed. Thematic analysis mirrored phase three.

Findings Five themes emerged from analysis: 1. ‘It was a kind of taster’ 2. ‘Faces’ 3. ‘I don’t Facebook’ 4. Lightbulb moments 5. The cascade effect The interviewees expressed overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards the pre-entry week. All participants believed these experiences had been effective in preparing them for their programme and that their learning during the week continued to have an impact on their success. Students spoke of having gained in confidence as a result of attendance; they better understood the requirements of learning in university and believed in their ability to meet those demands. Initial wariness of new educational experiences is well documented in the literature, particularly in relation to adult returners and healthcare professions (Fergy et al., 2008) and was apparent in most interviews. However, it is significant to note just how lacking in confidence many of the participants were. The transition into a new learning environment has been increasingly recognised as an emotional process involving identity formation and indeterminacy (Christie et al., 2008;Gourlay, 2009). Beard, Clegg and Smith (2007) have argued that there is always an affective element to pedagogical encounters, something often ignored or under-theorised within higher education. Explicit discussion of the emotional aspects of learning may well be valuable in the pre-entry and transition period.

‘Faces’ Analysis demonstrated that all but one of the interviewees made several, unprompted uses of the word ‘face’. Speaking to people face-to-face. (Student 3) I recognised faces … just knowing a face. (Student 4)

226


ISSN: 1466-6529

The students spoke of the significance of recognition, socialisation and peer learning. For some this had resulted in strong and continuing friendships. For others it was simply a few friendly faces they could pick out of a crowd in the initial weeks. These insights into the value of attending the pre-entry week all emerged early in the interviews, before discussion of different learning environments and the possibility of blended or distance learning activities. The cues for socialisation, familiarity and learning were predominantly facial and experiential. They wanted to have been in the buildings, talked with their peers and tutors, interacted within a geographical space. The voluntary emphasis on physical location and face-to-face contact obviously has implications when considering alternative formats.

‘I don’t Facebook’ When asked to consider how effective other learning environments might be, the participants’ views were relatively polarised. Four of the seven students were adamant they would not have engaged in anything other than a face-to-face format. Two of the students were positive about the benefits of blended learning but only if they were supplemental to classroom activities. Similarly only two students felt there was any potential for socialisation and acclimatisation in a non-face-to-face format. The unambiguous rejection of online learning was marked, even among the students who had experienced blended learning in the past. Such strong views are of significance when planning learning activities. When discussing learning preferences, students seemed to identify themselves voluntarily as technically inclined or otherwise. This was not a matter of digital and information literacy, since all of the students were now confident in this area, but a matter of whether they viewed these tools as effective substitutes or, indeed, more preferable media for social and learning interaction. Such discussion echoes the ‘digital immigrants’ debate. Prensky (2001) has argued that the generation born from 1980 onwards (digital natives) have significantly different learning styles and needs than previous generations (digital immigrants) due to their immersion in new technologies, needs that higher education is failing to meet. This dualist view has been described as akin to ‘moral panic’ by commentators (Bennett, Maton and Kervin, 2008), while others argue that learners do not fall neatly into these categories and that their use of technology for learning is diverse and nuanced (Creanor et al., 2007; Kennedy et al., 2008). This latter view is mirrored in the student data. The two oldest students, for example, were the most positive about the potential effectiveness of e-learning. However, the notion and identity of the ‘adult’ or ‘mature’ learner were strongly evident among many of the interviewees. They consciously described themselves as belonging to a certain category, identifiable in opposition to their younger peers. Furthermore, they believed this had an impact on their preferences, learning styles 227


ISSN: 1466-6529

and, in many cases, self-efficacy. It also provided those students with a common bond, a shared sense of themselves, themes common within the literature (Askham, 2008, Stone, 2008, Mckendry, Boyd and Andrew, 2010).

Lightbulb moments For many students, the pre-entry week had been effective in preparing them for their programme because it ‘demystified’ (Student 7) aspects of university and academic work. Their comments and experiences appear to substantiate strongly theories of academic literacies and unrealistic or incorrect expectations of higher education (Lea and Street, 1998; Lea, 2004; Bowstead, 2009). Students were unaware of the language of academic discourse, of conventions of assessment and writing, for example. Others spoke of realisations and sudden flashes of understanding in terms of the need to substantiate arguments or to provide evidence by way of referencing. That nursing is an evidence-based profession and that university work requires evidence rather than opinion or the narration of clinical experience is axiomatic to those within both fields. However, this was a new concept to some students, and the pre-entry week appears to have illuminated some of these often tacit practices.

The cascade effect Students spoke of passing on the knowledge and experiences they had gained in the week to others once they had begun their programme. Their familiarity with the campus, for example, provided them with an ambassadorial role initially. Thus, information cascaded outwards to the cohort at large. This theme was mirrored in staff interviews. One module leader spoke of the importance of the pre-entry week in arming a group of students with the information required to progress smoothly into their programme, something they then passed on to others.

Discussion Returning to the two original research questions, it seems clear that answers can be suggested for each. The current pre-entry programme was successful in easing the transition of new students who had attended it. While further tracking is required to gather meaningful data on the retention and progression of attendees, qualitative methods provided a wealth of evidence to its efficacy and value. Both students and staff thought it was a necessary initiative and the latter spoke about its impact on their learning and transition in a wholly positive manner. In particular, the preentry initiative appeared to fulfil its dual function of increasing confidence and acclimatising and socialising new learners to the university environment. Results also coalesced strongly with themes found in the literature, especially concerning 228


ISSN: 1466-6529

the role of emotion in learning, academic literacies and unclear expectations of writing and assessment. From a widening participation and inclusion perspective, such support appears invaluable for those learners who are able to attend. But what of those who cannot? The second research question, therefore, concerned the possibility for replacing the campus-based pre-entry programme with a blended or wholly online environment. Here again, the answer appears unequivocal. It is not possible to replicate the campus programme experience with a virtual version. Such a conclusion is echoed in the findings of similar projects at other institutions (Danvers and Hopf, 2012). The benefits of face-to-face, on-campus acclimatisation seem to require just that. There are certainly ways to enhance the programme by introducing blended elements, but the results of this project strongly suggest they can only supplement or act as a very poor replacement where there is no possibility for actual attendance. While very few people argue for purely online learning, it is worth recognising and discussing the potentially disenfranchising impact of any shift to virtual support. At a policy or managerial level, emphasis is increasingly placed on blended learning. For example, at the university involved in the study, any internal learning and teaching project bids must currently engage with either blended learning or internationalisation. In a time of financial constraints, online pre-entry support might appear an attractive alternative to potentially costly campus-based provision. Furthermore, assumptions of digital literacy – and the existence of and digital competency of ‘digital natives’ – appear ubiquitous, however unfounded (Farrell, 2012). In fact, recent research (Beetham, Littlejohn and McGill, 2010) suggests that, while governments are now increasingly recognising entitlement to digital capability alongside the entitlement to read-write literacy and numeracy for their citizens, several factors remain unacknowledged. Digital opportunities are disproportionately taken up by those with existing educational capital, for example. Transferring digital capabilities between learning environments and contexts is problematic. Furthermore, learners’ information and communication technology (ICT) skills are often less advanced than educators, and learners, assume. Such conclusions obviously have major implications for inclusion. This research would appear to substantiate these findings. Further prioritising of blended or online learning may initially alienate certain learners, an issue of particular prominence during the challenging transition phase into higher education. The qualitative data strongly suggested that some students would simply not have engaged with an online alternative. Furthermore, throughout the active life of the placement blog – during phase 1 of the project – the developers continually received emails from students to report difficulties in accessing the site. This was despite every effort to ensure technical simplicity and availability of the resources. A section of the intended student population experienced barriers to using ICT for learning purposes, whether from issues of confidence or competence. Certain learners, the ‘digitally reluctant’ perhaps, appear to be unwilling or unable to engage with new 229


ISSN: 1466-6529

technologies and mediums for learning, for whatever reason. It is far from clear how to reach this heterogeneous group, or if, in fact, there is a need or right to do so. Clearly from an inclusion point of view, however, to consider the wholesale replacement of campus-based widening participation and pre-entry activities with online strategies seems self-defeating. Some learners would be entirely missed by such a learning environment. Yet some compromise must be found. The issues of oversubscription to the campus programme remain, even if it continues. As a result of restructuring within the institution, and having been informed by these research outcomes, a new pre-entry support programme is currently under development within the School of Health and Life Sciences. Face-to-face pre-entry support will continue in the form of two two-day events: University Bootcamp – aimed at students joining university directly from school – and Getting Ready for Articulation – for students joining from college. In addition, greater emphasis will be placed on liaison work with local schools and colleges so that transition, acclimatisation and learning development can take place over a longer time period prior to entry. While the research project certainly highlighted limitations in the use of online environments for pre-entry learning development among widening participation groups, it also demonstrated possibilities and opportunities. A freely accessible website is, thus, being constructed to house bite-size learning objects designed to provide transition, confidence raising and learning development support to students in the School. It is to sit alongside and enhance classroom activities and covers those topics and teaching and learning methods that appeared to work most effectively. This combination of activities hopefully allows for the successful negotiation between possibly conflicting policies and discourses – those of inclusive and blended learning development support.

References Andrew, N., McGuinness, C., Reid, G. and Corcoran, T. (2008) ‘Greater Than the Sum of its Parts: Transition into the First Year of Undergraduate Nursing’, Nurse Education in Practice, 9, 1: 13–21. Askham, P. (2008) ‘Context and identity: exploring adult learners’ experience of higher education’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32, 1: 85–97. Atherton, J. S. (2011) Learning and teaching: On learning styles, at www. learningandteaching.info/learning/learning_styles.htm (accessed: 28 November 2012). Bach, S., Haynes, P. and Lewis Smith, J. (2007) Online learning and teaching, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education. Baxter, A. and Britton, C. (2001) ‘Risk, identity and change: becoming a mature student’, International Studies of Sociology of Education, 11, 1: 87–104. Beard, C., Clegg, S. and Smith, K. (2007) ‘Acknowledging the affective in higher education’, British Educational Research Journal, 33, 2: 235–52.

230


ISSN: 1466-6529

Beetham, H. (2008) ‘Review: Design for Learning Programme Phase 2’, at www.jisc.ac.uk/ elp_designlearn.html (accessed: 28 November 2012). Beetham, H., Littlejohn, A. and McGill, L. (2010) ‘Beyond competence: digital literacies as knowledge practices, and implications for learner development’, paper for the ESRC Seminar Series for the Digital University, at www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/lidu/ p3_2.shtml (accessed: 28 November 2012). Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008) ‘The “digital natives” debate: a critical review of the evidence’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 5: 775–86. Bouden, J. (2008), ‘Why do nursing students who consider leaving stay on their courses?’, Nurse Researcher, 15, 3: 45–56. Bowstead, H. (2009) ‘Teaching English as a foreign language – a personal exploration of language, alienation and academic literacy’, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 1, at www.aldinhe.ac.uk/ojs/index.php?journal=jldhe&page=article &op=view&path%5B%5D=14&path%5B%5D=10 (accessed: 28 November 2012). Carnell, E. (2007) ‘Conceptions of effective teaching in higher education: extending the boundaries’, Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 1: 25–40. Carr, S. M. (2005) ‘Knowing nursing – the challenges of articulating the knowledge of practice’, Nurse Education in Practice, 5, 6: 333–9. Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI) (2010) Understanding and measuring the value and impact of services in higher education that support students: a literature review, London: HEFCE. Christie, H., Tett, L. Cree, V., Hounsell, J. and McCune, V. (2008) ‘“A real rollercoaster of confidence and emotions”: learning to be a university student’, Studies in Higher Education, 33, 5: 567–81. Clarke, R. (1994) ‘Media will never influence learning’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 2: 21–19. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007) Research methods in education (6th edition), London: Routledge. Creanor, L., Trinder, K., Gowan, D. and Howells, C. (2007) ‘Life, learning and technology: views from the learners’, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 2: 26–40. Cuthbertson, P., Lauder, W., Steele, R., Cleary, S. and Bradshaw, J. (2004) ‘A comparative study of the course related family and financial problems of mature nursing students in Scotland and Australia’, Nurse Education Today, 24, 5: 373–81. Danvers, E. and Hopf, C. (2012) ‘An online “Headstart”: supporting transition in the digital age’, paper presented at the 9th Association for Learning Development in HE Conference, University of Leeds, at www.aldinhe.ac.uk/leeds12.htm?p=7_1_4 (accessed: 28 November 2012). Dickey, M. (2004) ‘The impact of web-logs (blogs) on student perceptions of isolation and alienation in a web-based distance-learning environment’, Open Learning, 19, 3: 279–91. Edgeley, A., Timmons, S. and Crosbie, B. (2009) ‘Desperately seeking sociology: nursing student perceptions of sociology on nursing courses’, Nurse Education Today, 29, 1: 16–23. Farrell, S. (2012) ‘Challenging Assumptions about IT Skills in HE’, paper presented at the 9th Association for Learning Development in HE Conference, University of Leeds, at www.aldinhe.ac.uk/leeds12.htm?p=7_1_4 (accessed: 28 November 2012).

231


ISSN: 1466-6529

Ferdig, R. and Trammell, K. (2004) ‘Content delivery in the “Blogosphere”’, Technological Horizons in Education Journal, February, at http://thejournal.com/articles/2004/02/01/ content-delivery-in-the-blogosphere.aspx (accessed: 28 November 2012). Fergy, S., Heatley, S., Morgan, G. and Hodgson, D. (2008) ‘The impact of pre-entry study skills training programmes on students’ first year experience in health and social care programmes’, Nurse Education in Practice, 8, 1: 20–30. Fitzgibbon, K. and Prior, J. (2006) ‘Students’ early experiences and university interventions – a timeline to aid undergraduate student retention’, Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 8, 3: 17–27. Fleming, N. and Mills, C. (1992) ‘Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection’, To Improve the Academy, 11: 137–46. Gardner, H. (1984) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, London: Heinemann. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) (2011), Welcome to GCU (Facebook page, discussion board), at www.facebook.com/pages/Welcome-to-GCU-hosted-byWellbeing-Services-GCU/118991724835401?sk=app_2373072738 (accessed: 28 November 2012). Glasgow Caledonian University (2009) ‘Information for mature students’, at www.gcu. ac.uk/study/undergraduate/informationformaturestudents/ (accessed: 28 November 2012). Glossop, C. (2002) ‘Student nurse attrition: use of an exit-interview procedure to determine students’ reasons for leaving’, Nurse Education Today, 22, 5: 375–86. Glossop, C. (2001) ‘Student nurse attrition from pre-registration courses: investigating methodological issue’, Nurse Education Today, 21, 3: 170–80. Gourlay, L. (2009) ‘Threshold Practices: becoming a student through academic literacies’, London Review of Education, 7, 2: 181–92. Haggis, T. (2006) ‘Pedagogies for diversity: retaining critical challenge amidst fears of “dumbing down”’, Studies in Higher Education, 31, 5: 521–35. Hilton, J. (2006) ‘The future for higher education: sunrise or perfect storm?’, EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 41, 2: 59–71. Hodgson, D., May, S. and Marks-Maran, D. (2008) ‘Promoting the Development of a Supportive Learning Environment Through Action Research from the “Middle Out”’, Educational Action Research, 16, 4: 531–44. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992) Manual of learning styles (3rd edition), Maidenhead: Peter Honey. JISC (2009) Effective practice in a digital age, Bristol: HEFCE. Available from www.jisc. ac.uk/media/documents/publications/effectivepracticedigitalage.pdf (accessed: 28 November 2012). Kamel Boulos, M. and Wheeler, S. (2007) ‘The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education’, Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24, 1: 2–23. Kearlsey, G. (2002) ‘Is online learning for everybody?’, Educational Technology, 42, 1: 41–4.

232


ISSN: 1466-6529

Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K. and Krause, K. (2008) ‘First year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives?’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 1: 108–22. Kim, K. and Bonk, C. (2006) ‘The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: the survey says …’, EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29, 4: 22–30, at http://net. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0644.pdf (accessed: 28 November 2012). Last, L. and Fulbrook, P. (2003) ‘Why do student nurses leave? Suggestions from a delphi study’, Nurse Education Today, 23, 6: 449–58. Lea, M. (2004) ‘Academic literacies: a pedagogy for course design’, Studies in Higher Education, 29, 6: 739–56. Lea, M. and Street, B. (1998) ‘Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach’, Studies in Higher Education, 23, 2: 157–72. Leathwood, C. and O’Connell, P. (2003) ‘“It’s a struggle”: the construction of the “new student” in higher education’, Journal of Educational Policy, 18, 6: 597–615. Leese, M. (2010) ‘Bridging the gap: supporting student transitions into higher education’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34, 2: 239–51. Lowe, H. and Cook, A. (2003) ‘Mind the gap: are students prepared for higher education?’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27, 1: 53–76. Mason, R. and Rennie, F. (2007) The e-learning handbook: Social networking for higher education: Resources for higher education, London: Routledge. Marton, F. and Trigwell, K. (2000) ‘Variatio est mater studiorum’, Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 3: 381–95. McInnis, C. (2001) ‘Researching the first year experience: where to from here?’, Higher Education Research & Development, 20, 2: 105–14. Mckendry, S., Boyd, V. and Andrew, N. (2010) ‘Clear Ahead? Researching the experiences of late application students entering undergraduate nursing programmes’, Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 12, 1: 18–26. O’Brien, F., Keogh, B. and Neenan, K. (2009) ‘Mature students’ experiences of undergraduate nurse education programmes: the Irish experience’, Nurse Education Today, 29, 6: 635–40. Oliver, M. and Trigwell, K. (2005) ‘Can “blended learning” be redeemed?’, E-Learning, 2, 1: 17–26. Ozga, J. and Sukhnandan, L. (1998) ‘Undergraduate non-completion: developing an explanatory model’, Higher Education Quarterly, 52, 3: 316–33. Pachler, N. and Daly, C. (2009) ‘Narrative and learning with Web 2.0 technologies: towards a research agenda’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25: 6–18. Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C. and Thomas, B. (2004) ‘E-learning and retention: key factors influencing student withdrawal’, Education and Training, 46, 6/7: 335–42. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. and Bjork, R. (2008) ‘Learning styles: concepts and evidence’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 3: 106–19. Peters, O. (2001) Learning and teaching in distance education (revised edition), London: Routledge. Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’, On the Horizon, 9, 5: 1–6. Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher education, Buckingham: SRHE. Ramsden, P. (2008) The future of higher education teaching and the student experience, London: DIUS. 233


ISSN: 1466-6529

Reay, D. (2002) ‘Class, authenticity and the transition to higher education for mature students’, The Sociological Review, 50, 3: 398–418. Rochford, C., Connolly, M. and Drennan, J. (2009)’ Paid part time employment and academic performance of undergraduate nursing students’, Nurse Education Today, 29, 6: 601–6. Salmon, G. (2004) e-Moderating – the key to teaching and learning online, London: Taylor and Francis. Salmon, G. (2002) e-Tivities: The key to active online learning, London: Kogan Page. Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D. and Wisher, R. (2006) ‘The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: a meta-analysis’, Personnel Psychology, 59, 3: 623–64. Steele, R., Lauder, W., Caperchione, C. and Anastasi, J. (2005), ‘An exploratory study of the concerns of mature access to nursing students and the coping strategies used to manage these adverse experiences’, Nurse Education Today, 25, 7: 573–81. Stone, C. (2008) ‘Listening to individual voices and stories: The mature-age student experience’, Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 48, 2: 263–90. Thomas, L. (2002) ‘Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus’, Journal of Education Policy, 17, 4: 423–42. Thorpe, M. (2000) ‘Online learning – not just an e-university idea’, Adults Learning, April: 11–12. Vryonides, M. (2007) ‘Social and cultural capital in educational research: issues of operationalisation and measurement’, British Educational Research Journal, 33, 6: 867–85.

234