Learning to reference: an undergraduate e-learning project C Brown, R. Dickson, V McQuillan, AL Humphreys (School of Health Sciences & Liverpool Reviews & Implementation Group) Funded by a University of Liverpool Teaching and Learning Grant

Why? Two concerns  Weak academic writing Evidenced throughout all years of the program despite significant feedback on assignments  Plagiaristic behaviour Our experience University guidelines Lessons from the literature

Program design assumptions Adult learning theory  Flexible  Student controlled  Multi-media  Demonstrably relevant  High reward (50% of assignment mark)  Sufficient support

‘Learning to Reference’ resources Seven audio-visual modules archived in Horizon Wimba  1 introduction  2 rationale and basics of referencing  4 Using EndNote software Accessed through VITAL module link  Tracking  Supporting material

Findings (n=52) Access to computers:  92.2%university libraries  86.3%at home  27.5%public library 70%+ own mobile phones, digital TVs, Digital camera, MP3 players 70%+ use PCs, and the internet daily 80% perceived current IT Skills as sufficient

Uptake self-report indicated <30% uptake of 1 st 2 modules Reasons given: too busy (58.7%), left it too late (34%), prefer print material (26.1%), already know how (19.1%)

And so? Students report sufficient IT literacy Students report a perceived need The incentive was high Access to the resource was flexible No one attended for in-person assistance

We built it…but no one came When it comes to Self-directed E- learning, the indefatigable human spirit (that lives in every lecturer) is not enough

What the literature has to say about our new question Uptake is a frequent problem (Ehrmann ‘94, Devitt ’99, Greenhalgh ’01, Lewis ’01, Steele ’02, Hahne ’05, Calverley ’03, Vichitvejpaisal ‘01) Students don’t always identify technical problems  Fear  Peer pressure  Cost/benefit analysis (Selim 2003, Van Braak 2004, McNulty et al 2006)

Mistaking IT literacy for readiness Here and now orientation (why spend time now?) Buy into ‘better than a class-room’ Additional disincentives:  Telephone costs (most used home/halls)  Competing demands  Peer norming  Learning style

Things to consider ’if it were that simple word would have gotten around’ (Derrida in Cilliers 1998) Computer assisted learning is complex  Be clear about motives  Be aware of the time & teaching demands  Supporting Best Practice in E-Learning across the NHS (2005) ‘a flexible, inquisitive attitude to a range of learning mediums (particularly CBL) must be instilled in training 2 Key needs:  staff skills to design, deliver & develop  Student skills to undertake e-learning

Teaching competencies, Teaching capabilities Competencies- demonstrable, measurable skills Capability – defensible confidence to problem-solve in both known & novel contexts (Phelps et al 2005 ) We assumed competent with IT = transferable and built capability Is the NHS making the same assumption? Skills & training = attitudes and beliefs

Recommendations Focus on user engagement (before content).  What mediates engagement (CWAM?)  Not all students are Adult Learners  Schedule  Is it really taught best by e-learning?  Student culture- students as part of design team.  Learning what you don’t know (continuous assessment opportunities)