DIAGNÓSTICO .1 Presentación

Review of the literature thus far has indicated a need for HEIs to provide students with academic skill support. Ideally learner support should meet individual students’ needs, and be embedded within course design and contextualised to module content as opposed to being a ‘bolt on’ service. However, Wingate (2006) suggests most universities provide remedial support which is offered in extra-curricular skill centres facilitated by support staff, a situation which reflects the practice within the HEI at which I am employed. She claims that whilst this method of academic skill support is convenient and cost effective for HEIs, not least because a limited number of learning experts cater for students across a range of disciplines, it has considerable limitations in terms of meeting students’ needs, primarily because it is not contextualised to their learning. Specifically in the field of support for academic writing, Wingate, Andon and Cogo (2012) claim that writing support is provided in central support units which aim to meet the needs of students across all disciplines. Tribble and Wingate (2013) suggest writing support falls broadly into two categories: support for non-native English speakers and remedial study skills courses for other students. On the other hand, Bell (2011) contends there are three models of support for academic writing: the ‘skills model’ which she says most universities provide and which play a vital role in supporting students, a ‘socialisation model’ and an ‘academic literacies model’. However, Wingate, Andon and Cogo (2012) argue a lack of good practice examples, as well as tutor reluctance, are two key reasons

32

inhibiting the embedding of writing instruction (the academic literacies approach) across curricula.

Gamache (2002, p.278) argues that decontextualized learning in the form of study skill remediation which is ‘external’ to the student and their ‘internal’ lack of understanding of what learning involves, both contribute to student failure. This would seem to suggest that although HEIs perceive generic skill support centres to be resource effective, the opposite may in fact be the case if the support is not meaningful and useful to students. More to the point, academic skill support centres tend to be campus-based and therefore not available to ODL students who are remote from the university. Even if learning support centres are intended to complement teaching as Haggis and Pouget (2002) suggest, in my experience these centres have severe limitations for ODL students who are unable to benefit from face to face interactions and dialogue. Furthermore, in the context of providing information to aid ODL students in the use of online libraries, Tury, Robinson and Bawden (2015) suggest support is often an adjunct to the services provided to campus-based students, something which resonates with my own experience.

Maintaining proactive and effective dialogue with students is viewed as a key strategy for motivating students (Simpson, 2008). Where academic skill support is required, this should be contextualised to meet individual students’ needs, although Ehlers (2004), Simpson (2008) and Shillington, et al. (2012) claim that HEIs tend to develop tools without matching them to diverse students’ needs. Furthermore, Shillington, et al. (2012) suggest most support for ODL is subsumed within the resources of campus-based deliveries or as supplementary learning materials. Pintz and Posey (2013) argue that the typical adult and non-traditional nature of ODL students means many are experts within their own working environment, but are unused to applying skills such as research and writing skills within a work context. In addition to this, they typically have had little exposure to learning technologies and, as a consequence, adult ODL learners tend to struggle during their first term (Pintz and Posey, 2013). However, they claim that whilst academic support is available to ODL students, it is generally aimed at traditional campus-based students who are able to attend person-centred tuition sessions.

Technology provides options and tools for facilitating students’ development of their academic writing skills. Goodfellow, Strauss and Puxley (2012) comment that the drive for cost-effectiveness is leading tutors to access and use generic reusable web-based materials to support students’ development of their writing skills, but argue that generic materials need to be contextualised to the field and level of study or assessment style. Furthermore, they highlight the challenges faced by ODL tutors, who are not writing experts, in providing students with that type of support, and the problems associated with

33

them doing so. To facilitate this they piloted a tool which acts as an interface to help tutors identify specific writing anomalies within student assessments and to contextualise feedback to those needs. In my view this tool has the potential to be a useful aid to tutors, although there is still a requirement for tutors to categorise the type of written problem. More importantly, however, the tool focusses on feedback after assessment so my perception is that this remains a form of remedial action whereby students are directed to a resource, albeit contextualised to their needs. In their study, Goodfellow, Strauss and Puxley (2012) admit they have made no attempt to evaluate whether web-based materials are considered effective by students, choosing instead to focus on helping tutors provide more contextualised support to individual students’ needs. This is in contrast to my research study where students’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the various academic skill development opportunities available to them will be sought. A further issue in the use of web-based learning objects is the design and navigational aspects. Watson (2010) claims that considerable effort has been placed to enhance the overall appearance and technological impact of Re-useable Learning Objects (RLO), whilst content frequently lacks pedagogical underpinning in the form of scaffolding to structure and guide students’ learning. She suggests this is a result of learning objects being designed by technologists with little or no input from academic tutors. Watson (2010) provides a useful explanation of different types of learning object, which include: simple digital resources such as videos which have pedagogic potential; or combinations of digital resources which have pedagogic intent, such as audio-visual resources with or without narrative and multiple choice self-check assessment tools. However, Watson (2010) promotes the use of activity-driven learning objects in which pedagogic tasks form the basis of the learning. From my perspective the interesting aspect of her study is that she sought students’ perspectives of the usefulness of the learning objects, in addition to tutors’ views. In her case study she used multiple methods to gain views from three cohorts (2004, 2005 and 2008): student questionnaires (n=800), observation of students using the learning objects (n=70), tutor questionnaires (n=150) and student reflective logs (n=120). Overall students in each cohort showed high levels of satisfaction with the learning objects and the contribution to their learning. Although the learning objects evaluated by Watson (2010) were used to supplement campus-based teaching, these underpinning principles of learning object design can be applied to support for ODL students who never attend campus.

A combination of well-trained tutors, motivated students and technology means the opportunities for successful ODL provision is feasible. However, Lentell (2012, p.24) posits that “contact universities have largely not recognised that distance learning is a totally different pedagogy, and have not come to grips with the underpinning

34

organisational requirements needed to implement and sustain quality distance learning.” She suggests that in the absence of a top-level strategy and organisational support for distance learning, HEIs who are working hard to increase their off-campus provision will fail to do so to any significant level – in fact she refers to most dual university provision as a ‘cottage industry’. Although Lentell (2012) highlights key differences between campus-based and ODL delivery, when it comes to policy

development she advises against marginalising distance learning via the development of separate policies. Instead she advocates contextualising policies with sub-processes for distance learning which, she suggests, ensures parity of learning outcomes,

experience and qualifications. Her comments about ‘cottage industry’ distance learning, although making me feel somewhat defensive, do resonate with my own experiences as an ODL tutor, comments relating to a bottom-up approach for ODL course

development and innovation, and the need to bend to university policies for campus- based provision to make them fit ODL students’ circumstances. That said, there is, in my view, an appetite for improvement within the university in which I am employed, albeit driven by the NSS which is, as the literature suggests, not wholly relevant to many ODL students and courses, and it is anticipated this research study will contribute to improving the experiences of ODL students seeking to enhance their academic skills.