Web-based learning services as experienced by students in Finnish UASs

1. Web-based learning services as experienced by students in Finnish UASs Seppo Saari FINHEEC Irja Leppisaari Central Ostrobothnia University of Applied Sciences

2. Introduction • Study aims to highlight the student's key role in QA and the development of web-based education. • The Finnish Evaluation Context: The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) considers students’ active participation in evaluation to be a significant resource. • Student representatives have been members of the Evaluation Council and of all evaluation groups.

3. Introduction • Student perspectives were a key feature of evaluation 2007-2008. • Focus was on courses completed entirely or partially through the Internet in UASs. • 25 universities of applied sciences (UAS) participated in the various stages of the evaluation. • The evaluation methodology was constructed around the dialogue between HE representatives and the evaluation team, as a so-called communicative evaluation.

4. Background of web-based teaching and learning in UASs • The development of web-based teaching and learning in UASs as well as the Finnish Online University of Applied Sciences (FOUAS), as partner organisation for all UASs, has been emphasised in prospective development documents of HEIs published by the Ministry of Education. • The Ministry’s aims are articulated in the 'Education and Research' document where ICT in teaching and learning presents a core function (2003-2008). • The message is that HEIs should be in the forefront of development, and not followers

5. Background of web-based teaching and learning in UASs • The flexible study right allows students to select courses at any Finnish UAS with web-based courses primarily to be offered through the FOUAS portal. • This should ensure equal rights to virtual student mobility for all students, which means taking advantage of courses at other HE institutions primarily through web-mediated means. (FOUAS - strategy outline for 2008–2015).

6. Description of the study 1 • Study objective Analyse web-based courses from a student perspective. • Research questions: - How do services offered by UASs and FOUAS meet student needs? - What are the uses, barriers and advantages in web-based teaching and learning from student’s perspective?

7. Description of the study 2 • Research data: - Evaluation report (Leppisaari et al 2008*) - Empirical data - two evaluation seminars and online questionnaires for students (2006 and 2007, over 11 000 respondents, the questionnaire reveals student perceptions rather than actual web-based learning experiences). * Leppisaari, I., Ihanainen, P., Nevgi, A., Taskila, V-M., Tuominen, T. & Saari, S. (2008). Hyvässä kasvussa – Yhdessä kehittäen kohti ammattikorkeakoulujen laadukasta verkko-opetusta (Growing well – Developing together towards quality universities of applied sciences online education).

8. Description of the study 3 • Research methodologyisthe analysis and thematic organisation of the qualitative data, which the evaluation report (further evaluation) and online questionnaire (further questionnaire) guides. This is supported by a quantitative analysis approach, enriching the information available from the researched phenomenon.

9. Findings of the study In the following, UAS student experiences and perspectives on web-based teaching, study and learning based on the evaluation data and questionnaire are outlined thematically.

10. Student centredness 1 • The evaluation aimed to focus on the pedagogical development of online implementations. • The evaluation process highlighted the need, from an online student’s perspective, for pedagogy to be in order. • Student’s role overall in web-based education remains rather passive. • Student opportunity to participate in course design is little or restricted.

11. Student centredness 2 • Student centeredness was evidenced in that students set goals, engaged in dialogue, and gave each other reasoned and argued feedback. • The final result of this kind of student centred online implementation generally won approval from the student representative, despite the hard work involved. • The evaluation recommendations noted the necessity to consider more deeply what pedagogical models online implementations are based on.

12. Student centredness 3 • According to the questionnaire many students feel web-based study to be a far more effective way to learn: The way of thinking on an online course is different – the method changes, you think more about your own learning with the result that it becomes more effective. • The questionnaire also indicated that not all students desired such an active role in learning as demanded by web-based study (cf. Macdonald 2006). • Jonassen et al (2008) observe that even students who believe in a passive role can find a new role and validity in web-based study when they have access to content, tools and methods that support constructive learning and, above all else, are given ownership of their learning.

13. Authenticity and working life connections • - were central elements of the learning process in a successful implementation • Good implementations took into consideration peer work required in the workplace and also developed interactive skills. • The evaluation recommended working life be utilised as an active teaching partner in order for UAS web-based education to produce authentic and situational learning and working life experts be employed as guidance resources in web-based learning.

14. Reflection 1 • A good implementation promoted a student’s thinking and the development of his/her reflection skills. • In the evaluation, student productions as learning material and learning reports with teacher and peer feedback during the process were raised as valuable implementations. • Individual and collective reflection were both evident in students’ web-based learning experiences.

15. Reflection 2 • The questionnaire indicated that web-based teaching provided time and space for reflection: an opportunity to concentrate in peace, think about issues and consider responses and one’s own opinions. • Discussions, tasks and recorded lectures were saved in the online environment, thus they could be returned to as needed.  Reflection was also supported as issues already handled could be revisited later.

16. Reflection 3 • Writing was seen to promote reflection. However, written based reflective learning can be considered rather burdensome. • Too heavy a workload was one disadvantage raised in the questionnaire.A development challenge is a diverse utilisation of teaching technology to promote reflective learning (Jonassen et al 2008).

17. Activeness, interaction and collectiveness 1 • In the evaluation, students considered sense of community a valuable result of web-based education: collaborative online work was seen as important. • Central to a good practice might have been learning in a group, shared feedback and the synthesis formed by the group in discussions. Learning was reciprocal; students had the opportunity to study each other’s work.

18. Activeness, interaction and collectiveness 2 • The evaluation team expressed concern about the little interaction in some online lecture implementation models and also how little students were supported to consider issues together. • The evaluation recommended teachers aim to employ collaborative methods, and that student partnership needs strengthening: entirely new models for online lecture implementation need to be developed.

19. Guidance and feedback 1 • The evaluation showed that students felt the individual feedback given by a teacher to be a significant feature of web-based education. • The evaluation clearly indicated the development of web-based education requires teachers to devote more time to student guidance. In entirely web-based degree programmes, there needs to be greater attention paid to student support and guidance. • The use of "guru students" and peer learners as guidance resources

20. Guidance and feedback 2 • According to the questionnaire students expected immediate, meaningful and significant feedback from the teacher, not just an OK comment. • Feedback from other students was considered valuable.

21. A uniform and clear learning environment • A good implementation is part of organisation’s online pedagogical operational culture, and not dependent on one individual teacher. • In good practices students actively gave development feedback on online lecture content and technical solutions. • Clarity was considered a central characteristic of a good web-based learning environment. Students also wanted a visually interesting online environment. • Contact hours were seen to support completion of web-based studies (cf. blended learning).

22. Flexibility and freedom • In the evaluation’s good practices presentations, students raised flexibility as a special topic of discussion, i.e., the added value brought by being able to select time and place. • Questionnaire results (see also Lehto & Korpela 2008) indicated that the schedule flexibility and flexibility according to the circumstances of one’s life are valued components of web-based education:I can balance family, work and study well. • Flexibility to find a study form and style suitable for oneself was also linked to online study.

23. The Finnish Online University of Applied Sciences and student mobility • FOUAS has especially facilitated movement of entire student groups between UASs but mobility funding has still remained untapped in many UASs. • The FOUAS portal was not known very well. • More professional courses need to be offered, and generally more courses for the summer term. • The added value of web-based study was also recognised in the progress of studies, for example, through internships or student exchanges abroad. • 2.4% of students were very satisfied and 28.1% satisfied with how web-based studies are organised at their UAS (50% neutral). Dissatisfaction was expressed by 15% and 4.7% were extremely dissatisfied. (see Lehto & Korpela 2008)

24. Growing towards a student’s active role Pedagogical,technological and organisational factors / perspectives

25. References • Alaniska, H. (ed.) (2007). Opiskelija opetuksen laadunarvioinnissa. (The student as part of teaching quality assurance.) Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto. Helsinki. • Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2005). Research Methods in Education. 5th Edition. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. • Creanor, L. Trinder, K., Gowan, D. & Howells, C. (2006) LEX. The Learners Experience of e-Learning. LEX Final Report. Available: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/lexfinalreport.aspx. Accessed 10.7.2008. • Helenius, R. & Leppisaari, I. (2006). Stopping Teachers to Reflect and Improve the Quality of Online Education. In C. Crawford et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006. Chesapeake, VA: AACE, 2527–2532. • Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments, Educational Technology Research and Development48, 23–48. • Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2002). Designing for reflection in online cources, HERDSA conference, 313–319. Available: http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2002/papers/HerringtonJ.pdf Accessed 25.7.2008. • Jonassen, D., Howland, J. Marra, R. M. & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful Learning with Technology. Pearson: Merrill Prentice Hall. • Lee, O. & Im, K. (2006.) The emergency of the cyber-university and blended learning in Korea. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing, 281–294.

26. References • Lehto, T. & Korpela, A. (2008). VirtuaaliAMK:n opiskelijakyselyn tuloksia. (FOUAS student questionnaire results) Esitys VirtuaaliAMK-yhteyshenkilöpäivillä 5.2.2008, HAAGA-HELIA AMK, Helsinki. Available: www.amk.fi Accessed 6.7.2008. • Leppisaari, I., Ihanainen, P., Nevgi, A., Taskila, V-M., Tuominen, T. & Saari, S. (2008). Hyvässä kasvussa – Yhdessä kehittäen kohti ammattikorkeakoulujen laadukasta verkko-opetusta (Growing well – Developing together towards quality universities of applied sciences online education). • Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 4:2008. Helsinki. Available: http://www.kka.fi/pdf/julkaisut/KKA_408.pdf. Accessed 10.7.2008. • Leppisaari, I., Vainio, L., Kleimola, R., Hartnell-Young, E. & Makino, Y. (2006). Comparing online mentoring cases in educational context in Finland, Australia and Japan. In Proceedings (CD-ROM) of EMCC European Mentoring and Coaching Council Conference, November 1– 3, 2006, Cologne, Germany. • Löfström, E. & Nevgi, A. (2007). From strategic planning to meaningful learning: diverse perspectives on the development of web-based teaching and learning in higher education, British Journal of Educational Technology 38, 312–324. • Macdonald, J. (2006). Blended Learning and Online Tutoring. Aldershot: Gower. • Yoon, S. (2003). In Search of Meaningful Online Learning Experiences, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 100, 19–29.