Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1) Note on inclusion of dissertation The following MA Education Dissertation by Andrew Walsh has been included for three reasons: • Firstly, it is very well written, in a clear and easy to follow style. • Secondly, it does what all good research must do which is be critical of the theories used and the interpretations placed on the data collected. • Thirdly, it deals with learning theory and students attitudes to different approaches. A subject that all teachers should be interested in. • The list of references provided will assist you with your own literature searches. As with any piece of academic work the dissertation is not perfect but it does have many more strengths than weakness. As you read it you might like to identify five strengths and three areas for further improvement. Unless you are familiar with research methods, I suggest that you don’t read the Chapter headed Research Methodology. Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 1
56
Embed
Note on inclusion of dissertation - Amazon Web …documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/...dissertation.pdf · Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1) Note
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Note on inclusion of dissertation
The following MA Education Dissertation by Andrew Walsh has been included for
three reasons:
• Firstly, it is very well written, in a clear and easy to follow style.
• Secondly, it does what all good research must do which is be critical of the
theories used and the interpretations placed on the data collected.
• Thirdly, it deals with learning theory and students attitudes to different
approaches. A subject that all teachers should be interested in.
• The list of references provided will assist you with your own literature
searches.
As with any piece of academic work the dissertation is not perfect but it does have
many more strengths than weakness. As you read it you might like to identify five
strengths and three areas for further improvement.
Unless you are familiar with research methods, I suggest that you don’t read the Chapter
headed Research Methodology.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 1
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Abstract.
The Moodle e-learning platform is used to support learning on the pre-registration
mental health nursing course at Birmingham City University. This study sought to critically
evaluate the effect of this resource upon student learning. An attempt was also made to
discover what relationship (if any) existed between Moodle use, student learning approach
and assessment outcome.
Firstly, a literature search into the areas of student approach to learning theory and
how this might influence e-learning was conducted. Following this, a group of 31 Mental
Health Nursing students completed a questionnaire about their use of and attitudes towards
the available e-learning resources. Each student also completed a Study Process
Questionnaire (SPQ) as developed by Biggs (2001). Quantitative data was gathered about
student access to online resources as well as eventual student assessment grades.
Following analysis of this material and consideration of questions raised by the literature
review a series of semi structured interviews was completed in order to more carefully
investigate student attitudes.
The study concluded that student learning approaches as described by Biggs (2001)
are very close to behaviours described by participants. However, data gathered by the study
approach questionnaires was of little use to the study and consequently, questions are
raised about the use of such schedules.
It was possible to identify student patterns of use and attitudes towards Moodle
resources and to relate this to student views about quality of teaching and strategies with
which students organise their studies. The study was also able to identify the importance of
good quality interactions with lecturers and with other students as being important factors in
student learning. The importance of assessment as being a driver of learning was also
apparent. Further study around the experience of specific groups of students, placement
internet access and the use of Biggs SPQ is indicated.
Key Words: e-learning, Mental Health Nursing Students, Moodle, Student study
approaches.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 2
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Introduction.
Recent years have seen increased demand for higher education (Bach et al 2007), in
2002, worldwide an average of 29.6% of people aged between 25-64 achieved higher
education qualifications, an increase of 13% over 10 years (OECD 2008). International focus
on higher education is partly influenced by consensus that it is an important economic driver
(OECD 2008). The UK government announced that continued expansion of higher education
could partly be aided by developments in e-learning (DfES 2003). The Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) launched a 10 year strategy on e –learning (HEFCE
2005) which acknowledged that many institutions were struggling to implement e-learning.
This growth in e-learning use and the problem of how best to use these resources has been
reflected in my institution.
The University learning and teaching strategy highlights the intention to develop e-
learning resources whilst promoting a deeper and more critical approach to learning (BCU
2006). Across BCU 86% of courses use online learning (JISC 2009). In my area, an
evaluation of students on the mental health course (JISC 2009) found that over a year there
had been an increase to 100% (from 88%) in students accessing online resources. Clearly,
we have had some success in the first part of the Faculty strategy of promoting use of e-
learning. However, we are less sure about what effect this might have on student learning
approaches and the quality of this learning, it is these questions that will be addressed in this
study.
This dissertation investigates mental health nursing students engagement with e –
learning resources and how these may be related to subsequent learning outcomes. This
study is personally relevant to me because I am involved in development of e-learning
resources. From reflection and discussion with colleagues it is clear that we don’t clearly
understand how students use these tools. Questions such as what they find useful, their
attitudes towards e-learning and the relevance to future working require clarification. Another
question is effectiveness, the University has encouraged e-learning but what difference does
this make to student learning?
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 3
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
A previous literature review (Walsh 2008) found no studies about e-learning within
mental health nurse education, concluding that this was an area for future study. The most
important area identified was the need for us to gain feedback about attitudes towards these
resources. It is also intended to consider student approaches to learning and how this
influences the use of these resources. It is hoped that this study will make a practical
contribution to our understanding of how best to use e-learning.
This study aims to do the following:
• Explore student’s usual approaches to learning?
• Investigate associations between student learning approach, individual patterns of e-
learning activity and final assessment grade?
• Investigate what Moodle course usage data can show about individual and group
patterns of e learning?
• Investigate student attitudes towards e-learning accessed, what aspects do they find
useful and what not?
This paper commences with a review of literature critically examining student interaction
with e-learning as well as a discussion of educational theory into student approaches to
learning. There follows a description of the research methodology adopted and a discussion
of aspects such as validity and reliability. The dissertation will present a critical analysis of
the data obtained before discussing findings, suggesting conclusions and areas for future
study.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 4
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Literature review.
Literature review: Introduction
Approaches to learning theory form an important part of this study; these ideas have
been strongly challenged and this debate has been reflected in the literature review. It was
also important to place the current study into context with work done in similar areas. The
literature review identifies and critically summarises the most pertinent studies.
This section opens by detailing the literature review process and continues with a
critical evaluation of the literature. The review concludes with a discussion of conclusions
drawn from the literature showing how this has guided the conduct of this study.
Literature review: organisation and summary of material accessed
Firstly, a literature search schedule was developed based upon the research study
questions (see appendix 1). Initial search of databases discovered two hundred and twenty
two papers which on the basis of titles were considered possibly relevant. Abstracts were
checked for relevance against the literature schedule criteria. This reduced the number of
papers down to twenty two. Of these, three were found to be irrelevant, leaving nineteen
papers which suggested another ten possibly relevant studies. This literature review is
based upon twenty nine research papers. A search was also conducted on the University
Library database as well as a manual search. It is now intended to present the literature
review which resulted from this process.
Literature review
In Sweden, Marton and Säljö (1976) gave students passages of prose to read before
questioning them about their understanding. Some, who memorised isolated facts in order to
answer any questions asked, were labelled “surface learners”. Others took a more thoughtful
approach and not only tried to understand meaning but also attempted to make connections
with other learning were said to have taken a “deep” approach to the task. Critical to this
study is the idea that students adopt learning styles depending on their perception of the
circumstances of a particular teaching environment; this study was developed by others.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 5
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
In Biggs’ (2006) work the idea of individual student learning approaches is developed
into what is described as the ‘presage/ process/product’ model of learning. This model
(influenced by constructivism) emphasises the importance of the learner’s perspective in
determining learning outcomes. Learning occurs not as a result of the student collecting
facts but is instead a process whereby individuals construct personal understandings.
Biggs’ (2006) argues that student approaches to learning determine outcomes.
Students adopting ‘surface’ approaches minimise study and engagement which results in
fragmented learning outcomes, rote learning of key ‘facts’ and patchy understanding of
meaning. Other students initially adopt a ‘deep’ approach; these students are more likely to
study more carefully, seeking to develop personal meanings to study material. These ideas
have become very influential and are commonly used as a theoretical background for
teaching courses in higher education (Kember et al 2008).
The questionnaire used in this study is the two factor SPQ developed by Biggs
(2001) (see appendices section) Much research has investigated the internal reliability of this
instrument concluding that it was a reliable tool for the evaluation of student approaches to
learning. This instrument has since been evaluated and used in a wide range of educational
studies ( i.e. Burnett & Dart 2000, Case, J 2004, Segers et al 2008, Walsh A 2007), all of
which advocate the validity of this tool in assessment of student learning approaches. The
literature search discovered many examples of the usage of this instrument which has been
used in a variety of settings.
An example is Ramburuth and Mladenovic’s (2004) study involving 966 Australian
accountancy students. This study investigated the effect of learning approach on final
grades. Using Biggs’s (2001) questionnaire, an assessment of preferred learning style was
completed at the start of the course. This was matched to assessment data on completion of
the course. The study found that students with higher surface approach scores achieved
lower assessment grades. However, there was no corresponding relationship between a
deep approach and higher assessment grades, a finding of no significant difference was
recorded.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 6
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Theoretical work (Marton & Saljo 1976, Biggs 2006) suggests that teaching
environment is important. Consequently, researchers examined whether changes to
teaching practice could influence learning. In a longitudinal study involving 158 Australian
accountancy students (Hall, Ramsay and Raven 2004) participants completed a Biggs
(2001) SPQ on commencing a 3 month long course, repeating this at the end. Lecturers
introduced problem based small group sessions, designed to encourage students to adopt
deep learning approaches. The authors reported ‘small but statistically significant’
differences in deep approaches to learning and a decrease in surface learning approaches.
The study had a low response rate of 37% (158 out of 427 possible students) and the
longitudinal figures include people who completed the first but not the second questionnaire
and vice versa, a limitation which is mentioned but not commented upon in the study paper.
The study does not mention whether this made any difference to assessment scores.
A similar study (Struyven et al 2006) concluded that environment (in this case
assessment type) does not influence learning style and that it may also be impossible to
influence deeper approaches to learning amongst students. Struyven et al’s (2006) study of
790 Belgian students investigated the effect that different learning environments had on
learning styles. Five sub groups were exposed to differing teaching approaches (i.e. lectures
or problem based learning) and differing assessment (i.e. portfolio presentation, MCQ’s,
exam). The study concluded there was no evidence that student learning approach was
influenced by any of the factors studied. However, a finding was that it was easy to
inadvertently encourage surface approaches to learning if students perceived an over
burdensome workload.
Some have questioned assumptions about the desirability (or even the existence) of
‘deep’ as opposed to ‘surface’ learning approaches. Haggis (2003) has professed surprise
about the degree of uncritical acceptance of these ideas within Higher Education. She
argues that acceptance of this theory has minimised attention to alternative ideas about how
people learn. Haggis also makes a point that became quite apparent during an earlier review
of this material (Walsh 2008) - a great deal of research sets out to confirm existing theory.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 7
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Another criticism is that this model is epistemologically confused in that it combines detailed
statistical analysis of responses with what is clearly subjective and qualitative data. This
critique was also made from a phenomenographic stand point by Webb (1997) who
questioned the possibility of a lecturer making ‘neutral’ and objective observations about
student learning.
Other critics include Coffield et al (2004) who raised serious questions about the
basis for much of this theory. They concluded that the approaches to learning theoretical
model is over complex and inaccessible, as a result it could be misused and also criticised
the lack of attention to social factors in learning. Another criticism is that despite this theory
having had a great deal of influence in the preparation of newly appointed higher education
teaching staff it has little to say about how one might actually change practice.
Responding to Haggis (2003) critique, Marshall and Case (2005) conceded that an
over reliance on learning style theory was unproductive. They suggest that rather than using
this theory as an ‘absolute truth’ about learning it is better to consider it a ‘thinking tool’ – a
means of trying to look at teaching practice and student activity. The authors stress the
importance of studies being aware of context and socio-cultural considerations.
Reference to original material by Entwistle (1989) would suggest that wider
considerations may actually have been considered. Discussing the use of learning style
evaluations, Entwistle (1989) stated that this provided
“a language of concepts and categories through which to discuss more precisely teaching
and learning in higher education”.
Entwistle suggests that this work allows discussion of learning interactions, leading to
discussion with students about how they learn and might learn more effectively.
Another argument favouring qualified use of learning styles is provided by Rayner
(2007). Examining Coffield et al’s (2004) critique, Rayner agrees that over – rigid application
of this theory, where learners are given labels such as ‘deep’ or ‘surface’ – is a mistake. He
rebuts criticism that there is little consensus amongst proponents of learning style theory by
arguing that in common with any good teacher – understanding of pedagogy and individual
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 8
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
learning is a work in progress. Good teachers it is argued are constantly making and
breaking their own models of what is effective teaching practice. The fact that learning style
theorists disagree indicates that this area has developed by an empirical process of testing
and falsification. It is therefore, natural that disagreements become apparent. Rayners
conclusion is similar to Entwistle, learning assessments are ‘a tool and not an end in itself’ –
useful for helping educators to consider pedagogical improvements.
There was some evidence that student approaches to learning influenced use of e-
learning resources. In a study involving 95 Open University psychology undergraduates Jelfs
and Colbourn (2002) found some co-relation between ‘deep’ learners and positive
perceptions of e-learning. Students identified as ‘surface’ learners tended to complain about
time constraints and engaged less with online resources. This study found much stronger
co-relations between confidence of using IT and student perceptions of e-learning. Students
who were less confident at using IT were correspondingly less likely to positively evaluate e-
learning. The authors acknowledged that this was a small study and that therefore findings
could not be considered very widely relevant.
Another study was completed with 134 students in a US institution (Jordanov 2001).
This study used Kolb’s (1999) learning style inventory and a questionnaire examining
attitudes towards technology use. The study reported an association between an active
learning style and positive student attitudes towards e-learning material. Of 300 students
invited to participate only 134 (44%) actually participated. The possible effect of this
limitation is not acknowledged by the study, for example, did only the most engaged
students reply and what effect would this have on the study outcome?
A smaller qualitative study (Heaton-Shrestha et al 2007) of 43 students attempted to
examine the effect that learning style had on approaches to and use of e learning. The
authors found no evidence that e-learning made any difference to student learning style.
However, there was some evidence that students used this differently depending upon
individual learning style. Access was much lower, 45% of the surface learners used it
‘frequently’ as opposed to 82% of the deep learners. Deep learners were the only students
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 9
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
who looked at online resources in preparation for lectures whereas surface learners tended
to look at material after lectures as part of revision. The authors concluded that e-learning
was unlikely to influence learning approaches but that these approaches did influence how
students interacted online.
A study into student satisfaction with e-learning was conducted by Nian-Shing, Lin
and Kinshukc (2008). This Taiwanese research study did not look specifically at student
learning approaches. Instead, a consumer satisfaction questionnaire was used to study
attitudes amongst 230 (88% response rate) students. This identified four important areas
which influenced student’s views on e-learning. Course administration, ease of e-learning
use/ access, quality of educational materials and perceived quality of group and instructor
interaction were the most critical factors. Overall, the study recommends that IT support is
especially important to quality of e-learning experienced.
Another Taiwanese study reached similar conclusions (Sun et al 2008). This study of
295 students (45% response) attempted to identify the most critical factors which may
influence learner satisfaction with e-learning. Less emphasis was placed on factors such as
IT support and technical ability, the most important variable was perceived quality of
educational materials. The study concluded that perhaps students are now more comfortable
with technology use. The authors acknowledge however that this study is limited in that it
only examines satisfaction, there is no indication of the effect that use of this technology
might have on learning outcome such as course grades.
All of the above studies sought to investigate the possible effects of e-learning, such
studies are problematised by Clark’s (2001) critique of assumptions made in such studies.
As can be seen from the above review, there is little evidence to suggest that e-learning
outcomes are any different to other forms of learning. It is suggested by Clark (2001) that
this is because there is no difference between the two. Clark argues that instructional media
make no difference to student learning. What is important is teaching methods, it doesn’t
matter how this teaching is delivered any more “than the truck which delivers the groceries
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 10
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
has an influence on our nutrition”. Clark (2001) also argued that educational studies showing
an advantage to e-learning are methodologically flawed.
Finally, an interesting perspective was offered by Malcolm & Zukas’ (2001) review of
literature surrounding the general application of pedagogical ideas in higher education. The
authors concluded that the most dominant ideas were drawn from psychology. This
suggests that education is something that focuses upon the learner as an individual. The
authors argue that there is an assumption that students learn (or fail to learn) because of
their individual characteristics or because of the qualities (or failings) of individual teachers.
They argue that this approach ignores possible social, political, gender or class issues. An
attempt by Higher education managers to focus upon ‘knowable’ facts that can lead to policy
changes is suggested as a reason for this focus. A general review of the literature in the
current study reveals that all of it originates from a psychological view point and that this
would appear to be a valid criticism of this study.
Literature review: Discussion, conclusions and implications for study.
The literature reviewed in this study fell into several broad categories. Firstly, those
Deep and Surface approach scores were examined in relation to other variables such
as comparisons between SPQ score and assessment grade and Moodle usage. Deep
approach scores were plotted onto a graph and examined alongside assessment scores.
Assessment scores can be arranged upon a curve from the upper score of 95% to the lower
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 29
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
scores and finally the three people who did not complete the assessment. Corresponding
deep approach scores are plotted alongside the assessment score, these ranged between
47 and 25 (average 32). Examination of the graph suggests no association between the two
values.
Comparison of deep approach scores and assessment outcome
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Students
Ass
essm
ent %
Ass%DA Score
Surface approach scores were compared to assessment scores. Generally, surface
approach scores were lower across the group, ranging between 33 and 11 (average 22).
Again, the graph suggests no relationship between these values.
0102030405060708090
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Ass
essm
ent %
Students
Comparison of surface approach scores and assessment outcome
Ass%
SA Score
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 30
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Student questionnaire comments and development of semi structured interviews.
As stated, students also added comments to their answers on the questionnaires, these
were broken down into 5 themes;
1. Moodle as a repository of learning resources.
2. IT issues.
3. Moodle and individual learning
4. Moodle and assignment preparation
5. Variable quality of Moodle sites.
Many comments mentioned the importance of lecture handouts or PowerPoint slides
on Moodle; students expressed annoyance if these were not available. It was suggested
that if students don’t have to copy lecture presentations this allows them to focus more on
the session. Another point was that lecturers and quality of the Moodle sites varied, some
were considered helpful, others not.
Many comments mentioned broken links or links that won’t open. Structure of Moodle
resources was a source of frustration, some students found this hard to navigate because of
poor signposting and design.
The format of the semi structured interviews was developed in response to reflection
upon issues raised by the questionnaire, the literature review and also the initial research
questions. It was intended that these interviews should help to develop a better
understanding of areas suggested by data accessed to this point.
Study data suggests almost no correlation with the Biggs (2001) SPQ and any other
data gathered. The literature review also concluded that other studies failed to find evidence
that study approaches affect learning. It was decided to ask individual students about their
usual approaches to learning, whether their approach varied depending upon circumstances,
what encouraged or discouraged their studies and whether they set out just to pass or score
a high assessment grade.
As most of the group accessed the e-learning resources a question was asked about
what they found useful. Questionnaire comments suggested that students especially valued
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 31
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
lecture handouts and PowerPoint presentations therefore a question was asked about why
this was the case.
Questionnaires suggested that students had difficulty accessing Moodle in University
but more so at home and especially in placement. Students were asked about access
difficulties and where they experienced difficulty.
The questionnaire revealed some IT related difficulties, either because of poorly
designed resources or because of lack of IT skills. A question was included which asked
about student IT skills and also sought opinion about how well Moodle resources were
designed.
Study data suggested that older students were more positive about Moodle
resources. Students were told about this finding and asked what they thought of this.
Students were asked whether the Moodle resources helped them to learn and also about
what influence this had on assignments.
It was also decided to ask students whether they thought that gender, age, ethnic
origin or social background made any difference to their learning. Finally, students were
asked about their relationships with their cohort group and what effect this had upon their
learning (see appendix 5)
Results
A random selection of four students was made, these students were contacted and
agreed to participate in the interview process. Material gathered from these interviews was
transcribed and studied, six themes were identified.
Study organisation.
Students referred to the importance of organising and structuring studies. They
described a process of exploring the subject before deciding what to focus upon;
‘I tend to gather all of my information together, whether it is Journals, books and articles. I see what is relevant and then do a draft before checking to see if I am on the right path’
In order to develop study structure, students use a range of tools. Each of the
students used online material, handouts, notes, and interactions with lecturers and other
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 32
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
students in order to decide what to study and to check that they were heading in the right
direction. There was no indication that students preferred any one learning resource but
used these equally and for the same purposes. Students mentioned the importance of
lecture notes, whether written in sessions, or on annotated handouts and PowerPoint slides
as being important to the development of structure and understanding of content.
Another reason for developing a structured approach to studies was the way in which
this helped them to manage demands placed upon them. Students made similar points
about the quantity of work they had to complete and the difficulty of doing this without
organisation;
‘Sometimes you do feel that you have got too much and it is all coming on top of you. I tend to look at it and break it down into smaller pieces and make it bite sized and manageable – rather than just going ‘oh I can’t, look at all this lot’
There was some insight into problems faced by older students and possibly also by
women. Respondents felt that younger students were less likely to complete much individual
study. There was some agreement that older students and women may be more likely to
have family responsibilities and would therefore have to more carefully organise studies.
One student said that family commitments meant that she would have been overburdened
with work from the very first day at University if she had not carefully organised her studies.
Interest and relevance.
Another theme concerned the way in which students approached studies.
Respondents agreed that they changed study approaches depending upon whether or not
the content of the module was considered interesting;
‘If something grabs my attention then I am interested in it and more likely to want to do it, if it doesn’t then it is boring and more of a chore
A subject was defined as ‘interesting’ if students could see its relevance to mental
health nursing practice. If this link wasn’t clear then students generally agreed that they
would take a different approach.
‘I do the very minimum that I think will get me a pass if I think it is not relevant to my being a nurse. If I think it is interesting and relevant then I go above and beyond what is needed’
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 33
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Assessment.
Whilst perceived relevance is important to study approaches, students are also
influenced by assessment. Examination of the transcripts suggested that when students
were asked about how they went about their studies they often responded by giving answers
about how they completed assignments.
Study aids such as e-learning resources and written materials are scrutinised for use
either as guidance on what to study or to check that people are studying the ‘correct’
material. Moodle was cited as being useful precisely because (downloading a session
handout) it could help to quickly sign-post the right material to be covered
‘otherwise I end up reading the whole book and maybe not finding what I want, whereas with a handout it can help you find things’
Lecturer influence.
Students all mentioned the effect that lecturers had upon their studies. Tutors are
valued because they are seen to give a lead as to what will be assessed. Students try to
ensure that there is a shared understanding about this and worry if this is not achieved:
‘I thought I had some understanding, but the mark I got didn’t reflect that and it was really hard to understand why ..when I did go to see the teacher she just basically said I didn’t understand it but I thought I did’
Students said that lecturers were important because they could be asked about
course work and what to study. However, transcripts suggested that this might be a limited
view of the lecturer’s role; interactions with lecturers were an important influence. Students
agreed that subjects were made more or less interesting depending upon how lecturers
presented material. There was consensus about negative effects;
‘Take (module) for example, I was really looking forward to it, I thought it would be really interesting but they bored us all to tears - all of them. They just talked at us but they didn’t talk to us, and we gave up and basically just started talking to each other instead’
Another student said that the group would get restless if as sometimes happens, lecturers;
‘just stand in front of the class and read the slideshow to us, that is a bit dull because you might as well read that yourself and then bugger off’
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 34
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Alternatively, lecturers can be inspiring, one student acknowledged that at times he
hadn’t been expecting to be interested but;
‘then you get a really interesting lecture and that changes your mind and you start enjoying it’
Group effects.
The students spoke positively about the effect of their group. Nursing students do a
common one year foundation course before completing two years in their chosen speciality.
Students talked about experiencing frustration within the larger first year groups, especially
mentioning concern about other student’s behaviour. Two students mentioned a first year
incident when a group were behaving badly in lectures. This led group members to confront
the perceived offenders. There was agreement about shared responsibility for classroom
behaviour;
‘..in the first year you got a group who just wouldn’t shut up in lectures but eventually people got fed up and told them to shut up’ Another theme was the effect that the group had upon individual learning. Group
members appeared to act as a shared memory when students were unsure about what was
required;
‘The group helps you, if you are struggling and unsure what to do, other people help you’
It was also reassuring to check if individuals shared understanding of course work.
The students mentioned the importance of social support and friendship as having
influenced their University experience. Another suggestion was that group interactions
encouraged students to broaden ideas;
‘..it is good that you have got a wide range of people that you can bounce things off and get other angles and things you wouldn’t consider otherwise, and obviously you have got other cultures within the group giving you feedback so I think that is fantastic’
Moodle and I.T issues.
Students reported Moodle to be helpful to their studies but preferred personal contact
when interacting with other students or with lecturers. Typical of this attitude was the
comment:
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 35
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
‘I am using it (Moodle) less when the module is on, I want to listen to the tutor and take notes’ When students were asked about what they used Moodle for they agreed that this
was more likely to be useful to them when preparing for assessments. Students used
Moodle to check assessment criteria and as part of their revision. It helped students develop
learning structure in conjunction with other reading, lecture notes and interactions with other
students.
It was recognised that Moodle could make these studies more efficient because it
helped to guide students in their reading
‘it is a good signpost to other reading as opposed to me just going off and potentially going in the wrong direction, I use Moodle as an overview and then drill down deeper into reading’ All of the students felt that they were confident and regular users of IT; however they
reported common access problems within placements. One student mentioned that they
were usually too busy to spend time accessing the computer. Students also experienced
difficulty in gaining permission to access NHS IT systems;
‘on all placements you need a network access from IT and it is a nightmare to access this. You send off forms and follow up with phone calls but you don’t hear anything’
This reduces access in practice meaning that students have to wait until they get home to
get online and use resources or contact University staff by email;
‘If we could get student email on placement that would be really handy and then we could email you with questions rather than have to write them down and email once you get home’
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 36
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Discussion
This section will commence with discussion and acknowledgment of study limitations.
It will then critically examine and evaluate study findings in relation to original research
questions and literature review conclusions. The paper will finish by identifying conclusions
and possible further areas for study.
Study limitations.
The literature review may have missed important papers. Literature accessed has
shaped the structure of questions asked and data collected. If there were significant
omissions from this review then it is likely to have had a negative effect on the study.
Secondly, this study is based upon a small group of people. Although the response
rate was 72%, participants number only 31 people. Furthermore, the questionnaire feedback
section details the ethnic breakdown of the group. Because there were so few ethnic
minority students, the study did not examine possible effects of ethnicity or the behaviour of
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 37
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
overseas students, which must be considered a study limitation. Therefore, study findings
should be considered specific to this group of students. Any attempt to more broadly
generalise findings must be resisted. The main use of this study may be as a pilot for other
studies or as a starting point for discussion about teaching and learning.
As discussed above, this paper uses both qualitative and quantitative data. The
extent to which these approaches can relate to each other has been questioned. It should be
acknowledged that an element of creativity in how this is applied has been utilised. It is partly
for this reason that data is available as an abstract to allow outside scrutiny.
Finally, the authors own interests have to be acknowledged as a source of bias. I
have been involved in making e-learning resources within my Faculty. It is likely that I could
be considered biased. It is in my interest that these e-learning resources are successful.
Whilst I have tried to be honest about student responses it is possible that bias may have
intruded. Again, data gathered is to be found in the appendices allowing others to make their
own assessment of validity.
No attempt is made to claim that this paper describes an uninvolved and detached
study. The researcher is an integral part of what has been studied. It is to some extent, the
task of the reader to consider how far findings and conclusions have any relevance to their
own experience.
What are students usual approaches to learning?
The literature review identified theoretical backgrounds to learning approach studies
(Marton and Saljo 1976, Biggs 2006). These suggest that students adopt either a ‘deep’ or a
‘surface’ approach to learning depending upon their perception of the learning environment.
It is suggested that ‘deep’ approaches are associated with better learning outcomes, the
authors advocate that teachers can design learning that encourages such approaches.
These ideas have been widely adopted and are used to inform many higher education
teaching courses (Kember et al 2008).
In the current study, the participants completed a SPQ (Biggs 2001) to examine their
usual approaches to learning. The students scored more highly in measures of ‘deep’
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 38
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
learning approaches and less on measures of ‘surface’ approaches to learning. This study
found no connection between higher or lower deep or surface scores and any other variable.
However, elements of the semi-structured interviews did fit with some theoretical aspects of
learning approach studies.
The semi-structured interviews suggested clear links between student perceptions of
learning material and their subsequent approach. Each of the interviewed students stated
that their approach to learning varies. If a subject was interesting then students would study
more carefully, read more widely and enjoy the experience of studying. Alternately, if
material was considered irrelevant, students would seek to do as little as possible in order to
achieve a pass. In this case, mental health nursing students defined material as being
‘interesting’ (and therefore worthy of greater study effort) if they could clearly see its
relevance and utility in clinical practice.
Another similarity was found in Biggs (2001) description of a ‘deep’ approach to
learning. This suggests that learning is not a matter of collecting facts but involves the
student in developing personal understandings of material being presented. Biggs also
suggests that in a surface approach this understanding will be incomplete because students
have failed to fully integrate their understanding. The interviews clearly suggest that students
tried to construct their own understandings. They did this by exploring material presented to
them by lecturers and by reading handouts, presentations, books, journals and online
resources. This was augmented by individual note taking; students would use the lecturer,
online material and group members to check their developing understanding of material
accorded with others.
Student attempts to identify how best to pass the module assignment greatly
influenced study. Organisational benefits of deciding upon a structure to their study were
also credited with being an important part of the attempt to make the study workload more
manageable.
It was also clear that student interactions with the tutor were critical in terms of the
approach adopted. It was possible for a lecturer to inspire students about how interesting the
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 39
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
study material was. Similarly, if lecturers presented material in a dull manner or did not
involve the students in discussion then they would tend towards a strategy of working out the
minimum needed to pass. This fits with Biggs’s (2001) ideas because teaching context and
institutional procedures are recognised as influential in student motivation (or de-motivation).
It is therefore possible to argue that Bigg’s (2001) descriptions of attributes of deep or
surface approaches have some validity when applied to students in the current study.
Students adopted different approaches depending upon perceptions of learning
environment. They also tried to develop personal meaning and structure to learning as well
as adopting strategies that would ensure pass marks. However, apart from this, it was
difficult to relate Biggs (2001) theories to the current study, and questions are raised about
this.
Is there any association between student learning approach, individual patterns of e-
learning activity and final assessment grade?
Many studies accessed in the literature review utilised the theoretical work of Biggs
(2001) for example, Hall, M, Ramsay, A & Raven, J (2004), Heaton-Shrestha et al ( 2007),
Jelfs, A & Colbourn, C (2002), Jordanov, W (2001), Nian-Shing, Kan-Min & Kinshuk (2008),
Ramburuth, P & Mladenovic, R (2004), Struyven, K et al (2006). However, none of these
attempted any critique of underlying theory, which as Haggis (2003) has written, is a
common criticism of such work.
There was a great deal of apparent agreement that promotion of ‘deep’ as opposed
to ‘shallow’ learning approaches was a worthwhile aim (i.e. Ramburuth, P & Mladenovic, R,
2004, Struyven, K et al 2006). However, all of the studies failed to demonstrate a link
between learning approach and eventual assessment score (i.e. Ramburuth, P &
Mladenovic, R 2004, Struyven et al 2006), in the one study where this claim was made (Hall.
Ramsay and Raven 2004) it was restricted to ‘small but statistically significant differences’ in
deep approaches. There were significant problems with the methodological background to
this study and therefore it must be considered of limited use. Literature review analysis
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 40
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
questioned the research basis for approaches to learning theory, a conclusion supported by
this study.
This study attempted to develop a critical understanding of the theoretical
underpinning provided by Biggs (2001) through seeking to apply this in practice. Each of the
students completed a learning style inventory (Biggs 2001) which was compared to eventual
assessment score outcome, patterns of e-learning use and attitudes towards e-learning. It
proved impossible to identify any relationship between learning approach score and any of
the other variables examined.
This accorded with literature review conclusions that it questions the value of such
measures. In defence of these ideas however, it could be argued that students state that
once they decide a subject is interesting and relevant then they are likely to study more
thoroughly. If this is so then they must have a better grasp of the subject. Therefore, just
because the current study did not manage to record this aspect it may be wrong to assume
that it does not exist. A study which more specifically set out to measure this effect might be
more successful in recording different outcomes between high or low deep and surface
approaches?
The literature review also identified criticism of approaches to learning theory,
especially Coffield et al (2004) who questioned the theoretical basis of these ideas and
queried how these ideas might inform teaching practice. Rayner (2007) defended these
ideas by arguing that this theory might help educators to develop their own understanding of
student learning. However, at this stage in the current study it is difficult to agree that there is
any justification for spending time and effort in measuring student approaches to learning
using Biggs(2001) SPQ. Analysis of semi structured interviews suggests that students vary
approaches depending upon whether they found course work to be relevant to practice. This
has clear implications for teaching practice, however this conclusion would not have been
suggested by use of the SPQ and would seem to confirm Coffield et al’s (2004) criticism
about how this process might inform teaching practice.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 41
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Furthermore, as stated by Haggis (2003) it is possible that over reliance on these
theories distract attention from other ideas about learning, whilst Coffield et al (2004)
highlighted a lack of consideration of social factors. As a result of this discussion the current
study considered social factors which were found to be important.
Students agreed that their group had influenced their learning. This could have a
negative effect if others were disruptive and students had tried to share responsibility for
amending this. Students turned to their group for advice about completing assignments, to
gain reassurance that they had understood learning and to explore different ways of thinking
about the course. The group also provides friendship and informal support. Students valued
group interactions with tutors and resented being ‘talked at but not to’ by tutors. Clearly,
these are important issues and it seems reasonable to partly accept critiques raised about
the utility of approaches to learning theories as well as warnings about an over-narrow focus
on individual learning.
However, it could be argued that Biggs (2001) does consider learning to be a
function of the relationship between the student and the lecturer as well as the general
environment. Perhaps there is a need to argue that these ideas do recognise social factors,
albeit insufficiently.
What does Moodle course usage data show about individual and group patterns of
use on a particular module?
The literature review examined student use of e-learning resources, aiming to identify
possible effects upon learning outcomes. Only limited conclusions were possible.
Some of the literature suggested that learning approaches might influence
interactions and attitudes towards e-learning (Jelfs and Colbourn 2002, Jordanov 2001,
Heaton-Shrestha et al 2007). The first study (Jelfs and Colbourn 2002) identified a weak
relationship between deep approaches to learning and positive perceptions of e-learning but
much stronger links between I.T. skills and positive attitudes. Jordanov’s (2001) study found
an association between positive attitudes to e-learning and an active learning style (as
defined by Kolb 1999). Heaton-Shrestha et al’s (2007) study found no link between learning
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 42
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
style and e-learning use finding instead that ‘deep’ learners used e-learning to prepare for
lectures whilst ‘surface’ learners were more likely to use it to prepare for assessments.
In the current study it was impossible to identify any link between student learning
approach and e-learning use. Student’s use of these resources varied and there was no
relationship between learning style and frequency of e-learning access or attitudes towards
e-learning. However, general patterns were possible to discern.
Timing of e-learning access suggests that students are more likely to use these
resources when revising for assessments. When examining the total number of hits on both
of the Moodle sites it is can be seen that of the 2418 visits made by the group, 64% of these
were in the period before the assessment, compared to 36 % of activity whilst the module
was running.
E-learning usage was compared between two Moodle sites which support learning
on the Community Mental Health Care module and that used for the Nursing Care of Older
People with Mental Health Problems module. These are studied at the same time before the
group is split, one half doing the Community Mental Health assessment the other doing the
exam for the Older People module first. Student use of Moodle sites is nearly double that for
the module they are doing first. This confirms the idea that Moodle sites are used more for
revision than as sources of support for ongoing study.
Research completed by Heaton-Shrestha (2007) suggests that this is characteristic
of students who have adopted a primarily surface approach to studies. However, students in
the semi-structured interviews were suggesting that they preferred to interact with the
lecturer whilst the taught sessions were available and would only turn to online resources
once this was not available. Students placed a high value on tutor and group interactions,
being generally more positive about these than they were about online working. The next
part of the discussion focuses upon what was found about student attitudes towards the e-
learning resources.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 43
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
What are student attitudes towards the e-learning resources accessed in their course,
what aspects do they find useful and what not, also how relevant to their future
practice do they consider these resources?
The literature review identified studies which examined student attitudes towards e-learning
resources. An example was the work of Jelfs, A & Colbourn, C (2002) who found links
between student learning approaches and attitudes; a student with a deeper approach would
be more likely to evaluate resources positively whilst those with more surface approaches
would find more difficulty. The current study found no indication of a link between Deep or
surface approach scores and any other variable. The study was more successful in
discovering student attitudes.
Quantitative data gained from questionnaires found that all of the students reported
frequent use of Moodle and that they were generally positive, having enjoyed using this and
that these had contributed to their understanding of clinical issues. It was impossible to
identify a relationship between amount of Moodle usage and Module score although there
was a possible relationship between student age and attitudes. Older students were much
more likely to feel positively about the online resources. This was surprising as it might be
expected that younger people would be more comfortable with I.T resources. This was
followed up in the semi-structured interviews where respondents generally felt that the older
group members might have more responsibilities apart from academic concerns. It was also
suggested that younger group members were more likely to spend their free time doing other
things than studying and that this could explain relative impatience with e-learning
resources.
Many of the studies accessed in the literature review reported IT skills and issues
around computer access to be significant (Jelfs, A & Colbourn, C 2002, Nian-Shing, Kan-Min
& Kinshuk 2008, Sun et al 2008 ). Generally, these researchers found stronger evidence for
the impact of technical issues on student learning outcomes than that of learning approach
theories. In the current study, there were very few references to poor IT skills, all of the
students taking part in the semi- structured interviews felt that they were confident I.T users.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 44
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
However, there were access problems, especially in placement areas where only 39% of the
group found it to be easy to access computers.
This was explored in the semi-structured interviews and it became clear that NHS
data protection strategies cause significant obstacles to students who wish to use e-learning
facilities. All of these students described having to try hard to get permission to access the e-
learning resources despite finding this difficult. This in itself may be an indication that
students value the support that they get from the online material as they would arguably be
less likely to spend time negotiating access if they didn’t find this worthwhile. If the students
do value resources and teaching that is practice relevant it seems especially unfortunate that
computer access is hampered by these policies.
Finally, the literature review discussed Clark (2001) arguments that attempts to
measure effects of e-learning compared to any other form of teaching is flawed. Teaching
methods are important, it matters less exactly how this teaching is conducted. This study
suggests that students associated good teaching with better learning outcomes. When
asked about online learning they were largely positive, also, in terms of simply delivering
leaning materials (i.e. lecture handouts or PowerPoint presentations) students are as happy
to get these from the internet as they would be in class. However, analysis of the semi-
structured interviews suggested that contact with lecturers and other students was greatly
valued and there was no suggestion that they would willingly replace this contact with an
online alternative.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 45
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Conclusions
This study commenced with a discussion of e-learning growth both internationally
and within the authors own institution. Despite this rapid growth there was little evaluation of
how this might have affected student learning, especially in the author’s own area of mental
health nursing. The final section will re-visit the original questions, attempting to evaluate
how far it has been possible to answer them. There will also be an attempt to highlight areas
of further study. Conclusions reached here are not intended to be read as being widely
generalisable but refer to the authors own conclusions about this study within this particular
group.
Firstly, a research question was developed which sought to enquire about students
usual approaches to learning. The theoretical background chosen to investigate this was the
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 46
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
work of Biggs (2001). As discussed above, much work has been done using this as a
background and there have been serious questions raised about these ideas. In terms of this
study it would seem fair to state that this theory may have partly been confirmed by this
paper. However, it could be said this paper must also raise doubts about the utility of this
work.
Students appear to adopt different learning approaches depending upon
circumstances. Therefore, the original question which asked ‘What are the students usual
approaches to learning’ might usefully be amended to ‘in what circumstances do students
adopt more studious approaches to their work’.
The qualitative material gained from the interviews may have been revealing about
how students classify the work they encounter on the course. Students classify learning in
terms of its relevance and application to clinical practice. That which is considered relevant
is deemed to be interesting and therefore studied more closely, anything that does not have
such utility may receive only enough effort to achieve a pass mark. The descriptions of
‘deep’ and ‘surface’ approaches to learning as described by Biggs (2001) fit well with these
attitudes and therefore as an account of individual student approaches to learning this work
appears valid.
However, criticism of the theoretical basis for these ideas was discussed (Coffield et
al 2004, Haggis 2003) and the literature review also attempted some analysis of research
studies which had used this work as underlying theory. Literature accessed appears to
provide scant encouragement for the future use of this theory. It was also possible in to
question the methodological rigour of many of these papers. Studies produced insubstantial
conclusions and it was not possible to identify an example where use of these ideas had
improved teaching practice or learner experience.
Much data collected in this study was revealing of student attitudes and behaviour,
however, the study approach questionnaires completed as part of this paper were of limited
use. Other than to be able to state that most of this group scored more highly on measures
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 47
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
of deep as opposed to surface learning scores it was very difficult to discover how else this
data could be practically used by a teacher.
It seems reasonable to conclude that elements of Biggs (2001) ideas about student
study approaches provided a useful model for understanding individual student behaviour. If
they are interested and motivated, they will apply themselves to study more carefully.
However, the use of this to understand groups of students and to design class or university
wide policies is to be questioned. Furthermore, these ideas are currently being widely taught
as part of the preparation of new University Lecturers, to some extent this study would
question the validity of this policy.
Other aspects of the study could be useful in considering how best to work with
students. Firstly, students quite clearly suggested that they value good contact with
lecturers. Those teachers who interact well with student groups, who can listen to them as
well as being able to clearly link theory with clinical practice are valued by student groups.
Students are engaged in trying to develop a structured approach to their learning and
value the input of lecturers. Annotated handouts, presentations and online materials are
used as part of the process of making a structure that makes personal sense to students. It
is also important that the influence of the student cohort group be considered as this appears
to play a significant part in the student learning experience.
Another question concerned possible connections between student learning
approach and patterns of e-learning use to see what effect this would have on assessment
outcome. Data revealed no relationship or linkage of any kind between student learning
approaches, Moodle usage and assessment score. This failure to find a relationship may be
due to the small number of participants. If the relationship between these variables was a
small effect then it would require a larger study to reveal this. However, other studies
discussed in the literature review also failed to discover any such relationship, the validity of
pursuing this with a larger study must be questioned.
The third and fourth questions considered what could be learnt by an analysis of the
e-learning usage data available from the Moodle sites that support the taught modules.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 48
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Analysis of this data was supplemented with information taken from the final question about
student attitudes to these resources. This was obtained from questionnaires and was also
gathered in the semi –structured interviews.
As discussed, the literature review suggested that some studies have found links
between student learning approach and attitudes to e-learning materials. This study,
however could detect no such connection. Again, it must be acknowledged that if this was
only a small effect then a negative result may be due to the relatively small group studied.
However, analysis of other data suggested much clearer possible conclusions.
Group usage of the Moodle resources revealed that students are more likely to use
these after taught sessions have finished and in the period before the module assessment is
scheduled. It was also clear that given a choice between two module e-learning sites that
students clearly opt for the site which supports the module with the closest assessment date.
It may be that an element of these usage patterns is suggestive of students who are
assessment driven. They are not using resources to consolidate taught sessions preferring
instead to use them to support revision before an assessment. Alternately, there was a
suggestion that students may prefer direct contact with lecturers and with their cohort group
whilst this is available during taught sessions and only turn to the Moodle sites later as a
source of support.
Students were positive about Moodle, stating that this enhanced learning on the
course. There was some suggestion that older students viewed Moodle more favourably.
Student feedback about this point revealed a belief that this may be related to different
personal circumstances of the older group members whose responsibilities as home makers
and parents might necessitate different use of study materials. This may be an area that
would reward further study as data from this study around this point is limited. Similarly, as
discussed in the limitations section, this study also lacks detail about the experience of
ethnic minority and overseas students and again this would seem to fit with such a question.
The study found that students were confident about their IT skills but that IT access
issues remain a problem, especially in placement areas. Many of the students reported
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 49
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
access difficulties in placement. One student stated that there was pressure in placements to
be involved in the day to day clinical work, it was therefore impossible to spend time studying
in that environment. Other students reported access difficulties caused by NHS data
protection policies and firewall software. Apparently it is possible to overcome these
problems but only by persistent attention to bureaucratic procedures. Again, data regarding
this problem is relatively limited and this could also be an area that would require further
investigation. Ultimately, the issue of limited placement access may be something that would
require attention from the University authorities.
Finally, there was some discussion of the work of Clark (2001) who argued against
attempts to measure e-learning in comparison to other forms of learning. This study
suggests that students were unconcerned whether learning materials come to them from
handouts, books, journals or from any combination of online versions of these items. The
students did value contact with good lecturers as well as interactions with other group
members. The extent to which future University teaching might be acceptably conducted
online whilst retaining this personal contact may again be an area that would benefit from
further study.
In summary then, conclusions from this study are as follows:
• Students do tend to adopt different approaches to learning tasks. These are not fixed
traits but change depending upon their perception of the task. If mental health nurse
students perceive a task to be relevant to clinical practice they are more likely to
apply themselves more carefully to their studies. This conclusion has clear
implications for teaching practice when working with students on similar vocational/
professional courses.
• Students value interaction with teachers able to link theory and practice and who
involve them in sessions. This is credited with being important to student learning
quality.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 50
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
• Whilst student learning approaches appear to be very similar to those described by
Biggs (2001), the associated SPQ revealed no usable data about student behaviour.
Its value as a tool to improve teaching is questioned.
• Students try to develop a structure to their learning in order to develop personal
meaning to their studies. This organisation also serves to help them prioritise and
manage a sometimes difficult balance between academic study, clinical practice and
home life.
• Students greatly value interactions within their group as these are a source of advice
and help to broaden thinking as well as providing friendship and support.
• Assessment is an important driver to student learning. Courses which are preparing
mental health nurse students would be more productively received by students if
assignment content is seen to be closely related to clinical practice issues.
• Students value e-learning resources, tending to use these as a means of preparing
for assessments as well as being a source of learning materials used as part of
structure development.
Possible areas of further study are indicated;
• This study found no relationship between scores on Biggs (2001) SPQ and any other
variable examined. This may be because the group was too small and that therefore
a larger study cohort may achieve more significant findings.
• The group size and makeup did not allow for consideration of possible study
differences of ethnic minority or foreign students, this would be a valuable area of
further study.
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 51
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
• The study suggested the possibility that older students and those with family
responsibilities engage differently with learning tasks. A further study to more
specifically examine these areas is suggested.
• Student experience of using web based learning resources in placement is clearly a
problem. This would suggest a need for further attention to this area in practice.
(NB Reference list is presented in two parts, firstly general references followed by references
for literature review.)
Reference list: General references
Bennett, J (2003) Evaluation methods in research London: Continuum
Bilton, T et al (2002) Introducing Sociology 4th edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Boyd, E.M. and Fales, A.W (1983) Reflective learning, key to learning from experience.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23(2): 99-117
Jim McGrath and Anthony Coles - Your Teacher Training Handbook 52
Andrew Walsh : Dissertation for MA Education (EMODO1)
Denscombe, M (2003) The good research guide: for small scale social research projects.
Maidenhead: Open University Press
Denzin, N & Lincoln, Y (2003) The Landscape of Qualitative Research; Theories and Issues.
2nd edition. London: Sage
DfES (2003) The Future of Higher Education London: HMSO
Grix, J (2004)The Foundations of Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
HEFCE (2005) HEFCE strategy for e-learning HEFCE accessed online <