An e-learning experience for all! – Supporting students to engage with C&IT through the development of critical appraisal skills.

Jill Turner, Associate Teaching Fellow - Oxford Brookes University.

School of Health & Social Care, Oxford Brookes University, Jack Straws Lane, Marston, Oxford, OX3 0FL.

Phone: 01865 482653 Fax: 01865 482775

BIOGRAPHY

Jill is a Lecturer/Practitioner in Learning Disability Nursing, module leader for several undergraduate pre-registration modules, and pathway leader for the post-registration Specialist Community Practitioner award. She has the lead role in developing eLearning within the learning disability nursing programme, a role that has extended across the school of Health & Social Care. Awarded an associate teaching fellowship in 2004, Jill is evaluating the development of inter-professional communication and learning within a Virtual Learning Environment.

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the planning and delivery of student activities using C&IT, to develop skills of critical appraisal, and the discerning use of web based materials.

Results show that students developed the ability to critically appraise web materials and journal articles; demonstrated an increasing awareness of professionally appropriate and peer-reviewed sites; and utilised skills of critical appraisal of web-based resources.

Recommendations are made regarding developments in practice as an educator and for further research to explore the impact that e-learning has on undergraduate students and their use of web-based materials to inform and influence their practice.

Key Words

Critical appraisal Learning Disability Nursing WebCT

Action Research CPD C&IT

INTRODUCTION:

This paper provides a reflective account of the development and delivery of an action research project aimed to equip learning disability nursing students with the skills for using Communication & Information Technology (C&IT) for academic studies, using Web Course Tools (WebCT) a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). The Experiential Learning Cycle, (Kolb, 1984) was used to guide these reflections.

E-learning and C&IT are increasing in use in Higher Education Institutes; students are expected to develop skills in using IT in their academic work. As Health or Social Care graduates, students are expected to be IT literate when they commence qualified practice.

While marking student assignments, the author noted that, despite written guidance in module handbooks and explicit examples presented within module reading lists, student citation and referencing of web-based materials was not improving. Often web-based materials being cited could not be considered evidence-based research applicable.

This led to the development of the research question:

How could student nurses develop their C&IT skills while developing the skills necessary to selectively discern which web-based materials are appropriate to support their clinical interventions?

To gauge the use of web materials in teaching and learning the research question was presented for peer comment. Feedback encouraged the author to continue the development of an activity within WebCT.

The activity would seek to engage students in on-line activities exploring various web sites to compare the academic and professional rigour of content.

They would then go on to use web-based tools to appraise a research article relevant to the module of study, and work together in the discussion area to present a group artifact.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

Nurses in the 21stcentury are required to develop skills in using communication and information technology (Department of Health, 2000).

How information is used within the NHS is influenced at a strategic level (NHS Executive, 1998). One goal for practitioners identified the requirement for the acquisition of C&IT skills to become increasingly discerning in the selection of web-based materials used to inform our patients about their health.

“Web searching includes locating a site and, subsequently, locating information on that site” (Lazonder, 2000: 327). The need for students to be taught how to locate web sites, how to retrieve information from web sites and how to use the information to inform their learning is strongly advocated by Lazonder (2000) who identifies a process model as a suitable way of assisting with structuring the web search. This process informed the design of the pre-task activity in a way that could shift the students focus from locating and visiting the sites to identifying and locating information within the site. Then, in the task activity it would provide them with the tools to critically appraise the content of the sites and journal articles online.

Communication is a key skill within the repertoire of skills required by a Learning Disability Nurse. Lockyer et al, suggest, “…web-based learning environments that include communication-based activities can effectively enhance the educational experience” (2001: 276). It was therefore essential to consider how this skill could be developed with an online activity, and enhance both web use and communication between students.

One of the perceived strengths of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) is its flexibility. Tools have been developed to allow the student to access learning material within a VLE to produce ‘flexible learning’ opportunities at times which suit the needs of the individual (Beattie & James, 1997), via a variety of learning styles (Fleming, 2001). At Oxford Brookes University, the Web Course Tools (Web CT) platform is used. Evans & Ping Fan (2002) refers to one such environment as the ‘virtual university’ and they cite several advantages for students to engage in learning within the ‘virtual university’. One particular advantage identified is that of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) where students are encouraged to engage in discussion, and debate, answering each other’s questions. Within the perceived ‘informal’ environment of a chat room or discussion room, students are more likely to engage in the discussion and often feel less inhibited (Salmon, 2000). As one who values discussion as a medium in learning, the supported learning environment created placed strong emphasis on discussion.

METHODOLOGY:

Students registered for the module were third year, pre-registration undergraduate students on the Learning Disability Nursing Programme. Through discussions with student representatives, it was established that the majority of students in the group had very little exposure to using WebCT during their studies. The starting point would therefore be to find a way to engage the students in VLE and the subsequent activities without ‘putting them off’ or ‘losing them’. The need to guide them through an introductory activity to prepare them for the main task was identified. Salmon’s (2002) five-stage model of teaching and learning online was selected as the framework for the online activities. This model was selected as it focuses on ensuring that students construct the skills necessary to interact online; this was one of the key objectives of the activity. Once students are able to interact online then they could participate in the ‘etivities’. The model also provides the tutor with a series of stages with defined aims and expectations that provide a focus for the learning activities. The five-stage model (Salmon, 2002) advocates the staging of learning and activity, to provide a framework for the development of the ‘etivities’, with each stage requiring the student to master certain skills before moving onto the next stage in the activity and learning programme.

Planning & development:

The initial learning curve was rather steep. Skills were developed to design and construct the teaching materials required for delivery within WebCT. Skills as an online tutor/ e-moderator (Salmon, 2000) were developed to support the students during their online learning activities.

The plan for developing the site within WebCT included a series of pages that formed a staged activity.

1. Introduction to WebCT which provided students with a range of activities to engage in so they became familiar with the environment and get to know each other as a group.

2. The main activity; critical appraisal of a selected research article using web based critical appraisal tools. To assist them in the activity, links to a range of resources on the World Wide Web (www) were provided to support them in developing the skills to select appropriate web-based information.

The students were given the opportunity to complete the learning activity in the more traditional ’paper-based’ method, as completed by students in previous years. The online learning activity was timetabled for completion during the week 7 teaching slot; students were encouraged to engage in the activity for short periods each week throughout the term.

Development of the etivities (activities):

The WebCT etivity was developed within the framework of the five-step model of teaching and learning online through Computer Mediated Conferencing (CMC) (Salmon, 2000).

Stage 1 – Access & Motivation.

Initial activities concentrated on identifying and maintaining clear objectives for the etivity, making sure the introductory activity bore proper relation to the main activity and ensuring that this was explicitly clear to the students. A worksheet was developed to provide the students with a focus for the introductory activity they were able to use this worksheet to measure their progress against the aims and objectives of the session, it also served as an aide memoir.

During the module evaluation, the majority of students identified that the introductory activity assisted them to overcome the first hurdle in getting to grips with C&IT.

“It was really useful to be talked through in stages and have back up support there if we needed it. Thought the pace of the session was perfect, especially for those of us who are computer phobic! I felt confident to go on and explore WebCT myself afterwards.” (Participant 9)

“The activity was daunting in the beginning but as I went about it a few times I found out I could navigate more conveniently” (Participant 4)

“I am glad we have completed the proposed work; a sense of achievement on my part considering my hatred for computers!!” (Participant 10)

Salmon (2002) identifies access as a major barrier when providing CMC. She identifies the need for the e-moderator to be familiar with the software and the etivity and to be able to rapidly ‘troubleshoot’ and resolve issues of access restrictions. Logging on and breaking the ice within a face-to-face etivity provided the students with the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the software while having practical support where necessary. The outcome was that all students were able to log in, navigate around, engage in discussions, post comments and demonstrate all the necessary skills at an introductory level, a level that would be required of them in the main etivity.

Stage 2 - Online socialization.

A pre-task activity was delivered to familiarise students with WebCT environment and to get to know the large group. The large group was then divided into smaller sub groups for the main task within the module thus providing opportunity for students to get to know each other in their small group. Griffiths emphasises that the “interpersonal and interactive nature of small groups make them a challenging and appropriate vehicle for engaging students in their own learning” (1999: 97). The initial forming of the small groups took place within the WebCT environment, with most students engaging in the ‘ice breaker’ activities during the introductory workshop. These activities invited individual students to present an introduction to themselves to be read by the remaining group members. However, once the introductory workshop was completed the group informally sub-divided on the one hand into those who appeared to have access to a PC/Mac at home and the motivation to engage on a regular basis and on the other hand into those who did not have access to a PC/Mac at home. Several students did not engage in the task until the timetabled activity arrived in week 7; they were then hampered by the ‘technology’ not functioning as they expected.

Stage 3 – Information Exchange.

This stage set out to explore the information provided within the main task etivity: ‘critical appraisal of a pre identified journal article’. Web-based, asynchronous, discussions followed and students made comments regarding the activity in hand and the tasks set. Much of the discussion focused on ‘getting to know each other’ and served as an extension to their earlier explorations in stage 2. It was rather challenging to try to maintain the focus of the students on the task in hand, it was necessary to recognise the ‘stressors’ in force from external environs. Within the preliminary ‘feedback’, students identified the greatest academic and time-consuming obstacles were concentrating on dissertations and practice hours, closely followed by restrictions on access to a PC.

“… WebCT at this late stage in the year and with placement commitments made it more challenging” (Participant 14)

The following comment from students, who did not have a PC/Mac at home, identifies the challenges faced with having to return to campus to engage in the etivities.

“I don't have Internet access at home, and have difficulties finding time for computer use at uni, I feel if I had come up against a problem, it would have been difficult to resolve it quickly, as I am limited to how often I can access the site”. (Participant 9)

“When our time is limited anyway, and being able to physically get to uni almost every day to check discussions is v.difficult in between placements. If all students had a computer at home and access was free to use WebCT I’m sure there would not have been so many problems” (Participant 14).

Despite the provision of 24/7 accesses to computer rooms by the University, access to online learning remains a challenge to some students.

A few students did not participate in the etivity, their peers responded by expressing their frustration regarding this lack of engagement by their peers - traits identified by Salmon (2002) as predictable when engaging in etivities and interacting within the VLE.

“I checked it each day when I checked my e-mail and was excited when it said there are discussions posted …… I felt more in touch with my colleagues than before….” (Participant 3) Salmon (2000) identifies the necessity for the e-moderator to provide guidelines/ protocols for online working. The e-moderator provided students with guidance in the form of ‘netiquette’, based on Alexander (2000). In an attempt to bring students into the activity and maintain those already engaged, the e-moderator posed questions in the discussions areas and gave encouraging responses to student questions, both activities advocated by Salmon (2000).

Tutor response to a student question:

“Well done (student name) for braving the discussions area. You can see who is in your group by selecting the 'private' link (in the main discussions menu) beside your group name. As for the activity, if you return to contents page you will see the activity instructions on the page titled '6.3 Module activity'. I hope you manage to spur the group along, good luck in your activity.”

(e-moderator/ module leader)

Student comment on support from e-moderator:

“Nice to know (tutor) ‘present’, nice to have sound bites of encouragement.” (Participant 7)

Stage 4 – KnowledgeConstruction:

During this stage, students began to read and construct comments; they visibly began to develop their own viewpoints and appreciate the perspectives of others. Salmon (2000) emphasises this environment as being most appropriate for resolving strategic, problem or practice-based issues. To facilitate this environment the e-moderator utilised ‘weaving’ skills (Salmon, 2000: 32) to pull students contributions together and to relate them to the course content and learning objectives and when required, stimulate fresh strands of thoughts when strands were ‘slowing down’. To encourage participants to be self-directed the e-moderator aimed to provide only minimal direction to steer the students. Teaching in a VLE brings particular challenges, Salmon cautions the e-moderator by emphasising that face-to-face facilitation skills are insufficient in themselves to ensure successful interactive conferences (2000). When teaching in a face-to-face environment the tutor has the benefit of non-verbal communication to aid their understanding what is being said, when teaching in a VLE this important component of communication is missing. This lack of non-verbal cues presents a challenge to the e-tutor, e-moderator and student alike. When engaging in online conversations to avoid misunderstanding or misinterpretation particular attention needs to be given to how text is composed and presented. Standards supporting appropriate etiquette are identified by Alexander (2000) within ‘netiquette’ social conventions of computer conferencing.

Stage 5 – Development:

Salmon (2000) perceives this stage as constructivist. The students became responsible for their own learning through the computer-mediated environment. Discussion threads showed an increase in critical thinking within the timetabled activity; students began to discuss the task with an increased focus. Within the activity, students reflected upon and engaged in discussions around their own support needs, identifying their own developments and achievements through this increased networking opportunity. There was limited discussion regarding their participation from a learning perspective. It is possible that this is partly due to the ‘novelty‘ of the experience and their new ‘toy’, and secondly to the ‘optional’ aspect of the activity.

“The fact that I thought completion of activities was compulsory, then lost total interest but regained interest when I realised the activity could be fun” (Participant 6)

“I have found it impossible to apply as much time as I would have liked to this activity, purely because it's 'this term' The fact that the work isn't graded meant that I pushed it aside in order to prioritise the work that is.” (Participant 10)

Frustrations were further expressed regarding the participation of peers in learning activities; several students had engaged in the VLE on a daily basis, and voiced frustrations that they were not getting responses from the other group members.

“Other group members not making any contact at all until Thursday wk 7, was frustrating and I got fairly cross because I’d tried to make contact with no reply from anyone.” (Participant 6)

“I found it hard to complete the activity on my own as none of my group got in touch with me until week six. ” (Participant 1)

Salmon (2000) highlights that participants expect responses from other participants to be rapid, and this was observed to be true.

During the post-activity reflection, one student stated that participation should have been compulsory and that students should have been required to engage more actively.

“…. completion should have been compulsory to stop people from making no effort until the hand in day. Resources were useful and easily accessible, no excuses not to do the activity.” (Participant 6)

From the statement made by this student, it is reasonable to assume students measure participation in terms of active involvement and place less value on the discreet contributions of those who only read postings. The latter may choose not to respond in text, preferring to contribute in another medium.

Most students who evaluated the activity positively rated the opportunity to get to know each other more within the environment than they had in the classroom, rather than their having developed skills in appraising web materials and e-journal articles.

RESULTS:

Key points

Through engaging with this module etivity students have:

• Worked in small groups in online discussion based etivities;

• Engaged in online discussions;

• Developed the ability to critically appraise web materials and journal articles they select;

• Demonstrated an increasing awareness of the more relevant and professionally appropriate and peer-reviewed sites;

• Increased awareness and usage of the online electronic library services and resources, including subject specific databases;

• Utilised skills of critical appraisal of electronic resources and applied these to their dissertations;

• Developed confidence in using critical appraisal tools, students now have the skills to access these tools freely online, and utilise these tools across a range of academic activities at both pre-qualifying and post-qualifying levels.

FINDINGS:

Baseline and evidence of prior experience:

To identify the student use of equipment, during the initial introductory activity, the following questions were asked:

What, if anything, do you use a PC/ Mac for? (See Table A below).

From the feedback given by students, it appears that they primarily use the PC/Mac for essay writing and activities linked to studying. There is a range of other personal uses including correspondence and gaming.

What, if anything, do you use the Internet for? (See Table B below).

For use of the Internet students primarily report searching web-sites and locating ‘research materials’. The second greatest usage reported was the use of email for communicating within the university with tutors, communicating with friends both nationally and internationally. Only one student referred to online shopping and a few reported using the Internet to access leisure opportunities, including games and music. It is surprising that such a small number reported using the Internet for leisure pursuits; the researcher had anticipated that more students would be online gamers, online chat users or users of music download sites.

The responses indicated that there was a range of use of the Internet. This information provided the opportunity to pose the second activity to the student group.

The second of the introductory activities, presented the following questions:

1. How do you select the web-based materials you include in your studying and cite in your references?

2. How do you identify whether the web-based materials are considered appropriately 'academic' or 'evidence based'?

3. What tools do you use to assist you in your appraisal of websites?

Responses included the following, (See Box 1 below).

This range of responses implies that some students apply thought to the materials they search for on the web, utilising similar skills to general literature searching, whilst others openly acknowledge not seeking and using web materials, for a variety of reasons. These include unfamiliarity with web materials, lack of confidence in appraising sites visited, uncertainty of suitability for academic selection. Few students’ demonstrated consideration of the strength of academic rigour within the web based materials they cite. Those who have considered this did not identify the ability to differentiate between sources using the domain name as an indicator of origin of the material; they relied more on the name of the organisation as an indicator of quality.

Engaging in the online activity, participation was made by all students registered for the module with group work undertaken in three small groups. Within each of these groups, the students demonstrated varying levels of engagement with the activity. Discussions were at times rather informal, and sometimes off track. On a few occasions, it was necessary to remind students of ‘netiquette’ and refocus the group members on task. Discussion topics were created for the group members to meet to have informal discussions, similar to the ‘café’ environment advocated by Breen et al (2001). Several students used this facility. One student commented;

“…… I felt more in touch with my colleagues than before…. ” (Participant 3)

There was a tendency, however, for this ‘social conversation’ to spill over into the other discussion threads. This may be due to their unfamiliarity in using an online discussion environment that requires the use of discussion threads; students also demonstrated difficulties using the features within the discussion threads effectively, often creating new topics rather than replying to existing topic threads. Creation of new threads led to an increase in the number of threads in a discussion and made it difficult to follow the conversation.

In one group, all participants appeared to contribute with similar frequency with obvious development within the structure of the group, and the production of the group artefact at the end of the task.

Members of the group clearly enjoyed the ability to communicate outside the usual learning environment and in a time frame that suited their individual needs. These group members had access to the Internet at home and logged on at varying days and times.

“I checked it each day when I checked my e-mail and was excited when it said there are discussions posted …… I felt more in touch with my colleagues than before….” (Participant 3)

To support them adequately requires some degree in flexible working patterns. On one occasion, the e-moderator had not logged on for a period of three days (over a long weekend); a student had made a plea for technical help, which had remained unanswered.

“Technical problems slowed me down significantly and these weren’t explained in time, received no other support.” (Participant 14)

The e-moderator cannot provide 24/7 support, this support issue reinforced the need to develop clear ground-rules for supporting the students online and clarify their expectations at the start of an etivity and the need to ensure that easy to locate links are provided to the Oxford Brookes University ‘virtual helpdesk’. This is a feature now included in the Oxford Brookes University WebCT course template.

Despite the challenges presented by the technology, these technical difficulties were recognised as a positive learning experience.

“I think WebCT is a great idea. I think it has helped my confidence on the web, and working through the hiccups was a positive problem-solving exercise.” (Participant 14)

At the other extreme, one group failed to become a cohesive group; there was little dialogue; group members did not respond to enquiries posted, feedback from the e-moderator was not put into action. All this appeared to lead to reduced motivation to engage on a weekly basis. Interestingly this group was largely comprised of students who did not have Internet access from home being reliant on using the PC’s on campus.

“Found that communication solely online did not work. Access to computers for myself is difficult so any replies to messages or reading discussions was disjointed and sporadic.” (Participant 14)

From the face-to-face dialogue in seminar activities, it became evident that the students planned to attempt the complete task in the single slot made available during week seven. One group member planned to complete the activity independently seeing it of personal value, and expressed frustration towards the other group members’ apparent lack of motivation. It was particularly challenging to motivate this group; several members became stuck at the second stage of the Salmon (2000) model of teaching and learning. Remaining in the socialization stage they didn’t progress into the information exchange within the activity. Several anecdotally blamed their lack of engagement on the workload for their placements and lack of access to pooled computers at ‘busy’ periods, thus demonstrating that they took little responsibility for their own learning within this activity.

Of the remaining group, they were ‘middle of the road’ with one person taking the lead in shaping the group and the others working along together in the wake of the leader. Prompting and cajoling each other, apologetic when they perceived that they were not fully engaged, together they produced an acceptable finished appraisal.

Note: Allocation of students in small groups was achieved by random selection. The researcher had no prior knowledge of student access to a PC/Mac at home.

Evidence of selection of suitable materials:

Upon completion of the task and faced with marking the students submitted (paper based) coursework, It became increasingly obvious that a small number of students avoided using web-based resources within their academic work. Of those who had included web-based resources, the references were presented incorrectly; this is despite being provided with links to the university library referencing guides. Of those who utilised web-based materials within their academic work, it is therefore impossible to state categorically that their selection was influenced by the task.

At the end of the module and completion of the etivity, an evaluation questionnaire (paper based) was distributed. The questionnaire asked a range of questions to gauge how participation had influenced students in the way they selected and used web-based materials in their academic studies.

Students who responded to this were generally positive, indicating the value of participating in a structured activity to practise critical appraisal skills as being beneficial. Having the information provided to assist identification of ‘academically appropriate’ sites was considered useful and of assistance in the task.

When asked how the activity influenced their use of web-based resources, the responses were surprising; it had been assumed that third-year students were already accessing the online full text journal resources through the university library, as the programme team had pointed them in this direction on many occasions over the preceding years. There was evidence of an increased awareness and usage of the online electronic library services and resources including subject specific databases.

“Used Athens and other databases properly for the first time, even got some articles for my dissertation.” (Participant 7)

“Participating in a structured activity to practice such skills was really useful in accordance with the provision of some useful sites to access (external links), as I didn't really have much of an idea of what were credible web sites. I have now gone on to utilise these skills to access additional information, really quickly for my dissertation.” (Participant 9)

Subsequent questions asked students to identify what factors influenced their choice of web sites and web materials to utilise in their studying and how well the activity has influenced their ability to critically appraise web materials and journal articles they select. Responses include active consideration of relevancy, previous knowledge or usage, date of publication, Official web sites or official documents i.e. .gov sites, those recommended by staff and colleagues, nursing and midwifery sites, those identified by one individual as ‘proper author or internet rubbish’ [sic], and whether the content of the web page is provided by well-known and reputable organisations.

“ I have really enjoyed discovering WebCT as it has pushed me to overcome many of the difficulties I was experiencing using the World Wide Web.” (Participant 9)

Considering the comments made, it is important that teaching staff and colleagues similarly consider the appropriateness of web-based resources/ web sites they recommend and specify why they recommend them. Some may be academically sound with a robust research base to inform its content, whereas others may be highly valuable accounts of personal experiences or resource sites for self-help groups. Students need to be able to discern where, when and how they utilise the variety of web-based materials in their work to ensure their work is supported by an appropriate and informed evidence base.

Students clearly appreciated a framework or tool for critical appraisal; some were familiar with using frameworks from previous ‘research modules’ but generally most lacked awareness of the availability of the tools and specifically lacked knowledge of their availability as web-based tools.

“I’m a bit better at appraising literature now.” (Participant 1)

“Not used a model for critical appraisal before, so good to learn an easy process of evaluation. Useful in getting to grips with terminology in research, and interpreting the outcomes.” (Participant 14)

The activity provided students with the opportunity to consider their use of web-based materials in an increasingly critical manner. Providing them with structured activities and predefined links enabled them to practise the task in a ‘safe supportive’ environment. Students demonstrated an increasing awareness of the more relevant and professionally appropriate and peer-reviewed sites. The end product is the recognition that there are tools available to assist with critical appraisal. Students have developed confidence in using the tools at a ‘novice’ level (Benner, 1984), they can now access these tools freely online, and they can utilise these tools across a range of academic activities at both pre-qualifying and post-qualifying levels.

CONCLUSIONS:

The main point of this paper was to present to the reader the journey taken whilst planning and delivering eLearning and report on the development of student C&IT skills through engaging in a VLE.

The initial introductory activities demonstrated the diversity of student abilities in working within a VLE and how diverse their experience is in using computers in even the most commonly utilised programmes, i.e. Microsoft Word ™. Students were reliant on the technology responding on demand and soon appeared to lose motivation if it did not function as anticipated.

Literature from a variety of backgrounds provided additional evidence to support the initial observations and influenced the development and delivery of the etivities. The challenges faced as a ‘novice’ developer and e-moderator in the virtual learning environment was somewhat overwhelming. The importance of team members supporting this development cannot be over-emphasised. Without the support of so many people across a range of departments in the University, this project would not have been completed; indeed, it is unlikely to have been started. The five-stage model of teaching and learning online, Salmon (2000), guided development of the main task activity. Students were able to engage in online group work to produce a group artefact. They demonstrated development of the skills of critical appraisal and an increase in skill and confidence in using the PC/Mac to engage in online communication on both educational and personal fronts.

Results of the activity indicated a range of areas the tutor/ e-moderator needs to overcome when responsible for developing and delivering teaching within a VLE. These include:

• Student and tutor access: including a student’s physical difficulty accessing equipment to get online or an inability to use technology;

• Motivation: motivating students to remain on task while facing considerable time constraints imposed by practice components of the course of study, academic staff, on vocational courses, need to take this workload balance into consideration when planning materials. There is also the need to consider motivation and incentives from the students perspective;

• Engagement: encouraging participation in the activity and conversing within the VLE, and

• Collaboration: working together in small groups on assigned tasks.

Adherence to Salmon’s (2002) Key Principles is imperative if productive ‘online’ group work is to be achieved.

Students engaging in the etivities reported a sense of personal development in their use of technology while engaging in the etivities; selection of web materials was identified to be increasingly discerning; students reported positive integration of skills in dissertation preparation. Despite the lack of robust evidence in submitted coursework, these combined results indicate success in the achievement of learning outcomes.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

E-Learning is influencing teaching practice on a global scale. Locally within the School of Health and Social Care, it has begun to be increasingly recognised as an integral part of the school’s teaching and learning activities and a significant activity for Continuing Professional Development (CPD). It is recommended that academic and support staff invest in the development of skills for designing, developing and the delivery of learning objects for online learning. Academic and support staff need to continue to develop skills to fulfil the roles of online course administrators or e-moderators. Academic staff also need to be critical in the selection of web-based resources, when selecting resources to inform and influence teaching materials it is recommended that the same rigour be applied as is expected from students in their academic work.

It is also recommended that further research be conducted to explore the impact that e-learning has on undergraduate students and their use of web-based materials to inform and influence their practice; the quality of student citations should be analysed and assessed for academic rigour and suitability. Further research needs to be made in relation to the assessment of group work completed within a VLE with specific consideration regarding the impact of asynchronous discussions versus traditional face-to-face discussions and their influence on student engagement and learning.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations to the project include the small cohort size 17 students, and the researcher being the module leader and e-moderator.

To reduce the incidence of bias and increase validity, future projects should engage an external researcher.

‍REFERENCES:

Alexander, G. (2000). Netiquette, or the social conventions of computer conferencing. Available at:http://www.earthconnected.net/papers/netique.htm (accessed 10/10/2002).

Beattie, K. & James, R. (1997). Flexible Coursework delivery to Australian postgraduates: how effective is the teaching and learning? Higher Education. 33(2): 177--194.

Benner, P. E. (1984). From novice to expert: excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. London: Addison-Wesley.

Breen, R. Lindsay, R. Jenkins, A. & Smith, P. (2001). The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in a University Learning Environment.Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 95-114.

Department of Health, (2000). The NHS Plan: A Plan for Investment, A Plan for Reform. London: Department of Health.

Evans, C. & Ping Fan, J. (2002). Lifelong learning through the Virtual University. Campus-Wide Information Systems. 19(4), 127-134.

Fleming, N. (2001). VARK a guide to learning styles: Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=faq (accessed 09/02/2003).

Griffiths, S. (1999). Teaching and learning in Small Groups. In Fry, H., et al (1999) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic practice. London: Kogan: 95 – 107.

NHS Executive (1998). An Information Strategy for the Modern NHS 1998--2005: A national strategy for local implementation NHS Information Authority. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4007832 (accessed 16/10/2002).

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Lazonder, A. W. (2000). Exploring novice users training needs in searching information on the WWW. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.16(4), 326-335.

Lockyer, L. Patterson, J., & Harper, B., (2001). ICT in higher education: evaluating outcomes for health education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 17, 275-283.

Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page

Table A:

Question 1 - What, if anything, do you use a PC/ Mac for?

All students gave a response, *one student indicated two responses.

(n=17)

Table B:

Question 2 - What, if anything, do you use the Internet for?

(n=17)

Box 1

Student responses to questions posed in the second of the introductory activities.

1) How do you select the web-based materials that you include in your studying and citing in your references?

“I tend to use web sites that are on the reading list or sites that I’ve been told about by other students or professionals”.

“I rarely use it for my essays but on those few occasions I do it’s mostly after I get it recommended by one of my supporters or mentors when I ask them for support”.

“It is a long process of selection from reading each article or abstract, no tools are used in appraisals normally check that the info is in current date and use”.

“I do a web search of key words I’m studying. Usually, when I’m trying to find material for essays, I type a keyword in and hope that something useful will come up! Then I tend to use only recognisedorganisations, charities and universities....”

2) How do you identify whether the web-based materials are considered appropriately 'academic' or 'evidence based'?

“I use web sites that I know are well known for their research or again are in the reading lists”.

“Look at who wrote the web page to see whether there is real evidence to back up the research”.

“I tend to assume that charities such as Mencap and Scope and university WebPages will have WebPages that are "evidence-based". I don't usually rely solely on the Internet”.

3) What tools, do you use to assist you in your appraisal of websites?

“Not sure what are available if any”.

“I don't ever use tools to help appraise websites”

© J Turner (Pawlyn) 2006