In seeking to establish the academic skill development opportunities available to ODL students, findings from the analysis of the pilot and strand 1 data showed that a variety of opportunities were available to support students’ academic skill development. In particular, pilot respondents were unanimous about the availability of interactive opportunities such as email contact with their tutors, formative feedback following assessment and VLE discussions. Strand 1 respondents indicated similar views to the pilot in their responses about email contact with tutors (97.6%, n=42), formative feedback following assessment (90.5%, n=42) and the VLE discussion area (97.7%, n=43). Strand 1 respondents also highlighted the availability of submitting draft work for formative feedback (97.7%, n=43). Virtually all students were aware of the availability of internet resources for academic skill development opportunities.
Although students were aware of the availability of a variety of opportunities to facilitate their academic skill development, analysis of the pilot and strand 1 data indicated that communication strategies for making students aware of these opportunities were ineffective. This was illustrated particularly well by the pilot data which showed a range of students’ views about the availability of a number of academic skill development opportunities. For example, librarian support, student services tutorials, telephone tutorials with tutors and online chat with tutors all demonstrated ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’ responses. Since the pilot participants were all drawn from the same Masters’ level course, this would seem to indicate the lack of a clear strategy within the course for informing students about the academic skill development opportunities available to them. However, since weaker students are more reticent at seeking support (Simpson, 2008), it might be reasonable to assume that in the absence of a clear strategy only the most academically capable or proactive students explored the resources available to them. This finding from the pilot data was corroborated by the strand 1 data which also showed mixed responses for all of the opportunities listed on the questionnaire. Thus it would appear that communication strategies to inform students about academic skill development opportunities were not just lacking for the pilot participants, but strand 1 participants too.
In chapter 4 comparison was made of the strand 1 data between the academic skill development opportunities available to students and those they utilised (Table 4.1), revealing considerable variation in some areas. Of particular note was the difference
144
between students’ awareness of the availability (n=35) and use (n=19) of student services online guides, as well as the availability of student services tutorials (n=22) and their use (n=9). It is impossible to establish the reasons why students did not utilise these particular academic skill development opportunities purely from the strand 1 data. Clarification was sought during the strand 2 interviews when three participants confirmed their attendance at student service tutorials, but these were students for whom their course involved some form of campus-based attendance. Although some students may have made a conscious choice not to utilise student services tutorials, it is feasible that for other students these tutorials are perceived to not be available to ODL students. A key finding of the QUAN data highlighted that ODL students perceive librarian support is not available to them. In the pilot, three out of six of the respondents recorded negative responses (‘no’ or ‘don’t know’) to the availability of librarian support. This was reinforced by 31.7% (n=13) of respondents in strand 1 who indicated the same negative response.
Some corroboration in a lack of clear strategy for directing students to academic skill development opportunities was evident during the strand 2 interviews by I01 who expressed frustration at the “trial and error” manner in which he had found out about the academic skill development opportunities available to him. This frustration seemed primarily borne from concerns about time management. However, the other strand 2 participants’ experiences in being directed to academic skill development opportunities seemed more positive, although Simpson (2009) refers to the ad hoc or ‘goulash approach’ by which tools developed for distance learning students are applied. Instead, Simpson (2008; 2009; 2012) is very much an advocate of proactive tutor contact with all students, thus negating the ad hoc nature by which students might access
opportunities for support and promoting the use of a more effective ‘just in time’ and personalised approach. Shillington, et al. (2012) are also of the opinion that simply putting together a suite of online learning resources is insufficient and that a proactive role has to be maintained to link students to resources at specific points in their learning. Not only has this research study revealed the suite of online resources
provided by the university do not fully meet the needs of ODL students, a key finding of the QUAL data identified that explicit linkage appears to be sporadic. That said, the strand 2 data highlighted that students do not necessarily access academic skill development opportunities when they are explicitly directed to resources by tutors, resorting instead to reactive approaches for developing their skills.
Existing research specifically identifies the need for writing skills to be embedded in course curricula, particularly for students making the transition to higher education (Wingate, 2006; Clughen and Connell, 2011; Arndell, et al., 2013). In strand 1, 21
145
students indicated they had used academic skill development opportunities because they were included within a module, although only 48.8% of students responded to that question. It is impossible to establish if students’ non-response to this question implies academic skill development opportunities are not included in modules. A non-response may simply indicate that students had no recollection of academic skill development opportunities being embedded within modules, thereby highlighting a potential
limitation in the study in seeking students’ retrospective opinions. It is also feasible that embedding of academic skill development opportunities does occur, but that students did not recognise this as a distinct set of skills and it was merely part of the module content. However, findings from this research study do highlight a lack of explicit direction of ODL students to the academic skill development opportunities available to them, thus adding to the existing literature which endorses the need for effective communication between tutors and ODL students (Price, Richardson and Jelfs, 2007). In light of the evidence from the integration of the QUAN and QUAL data, the ‘timing and trigger points’ aspect of the conceptual framework does not appear to be
sufficiently explicit. This category of the conceptual framework will therefore be edited to highlight the importance of embedding academic skill development opportunities on a ‘just in time’ basis.
The ‘don’t know’ responses in the QUAN data are of particular concern and would seem to indicate that students have neither been informed about academic skill development opportunities, nor have they proactively sought help to find out what is available to them within the university. It would be interesting to explore whether this group of students fall into the category of ‘weaker’ students referred to by Simpson (2008; 2012) whereby they need help and support but do not actively seek it, but this is outside the scope of this research study. Alternatively the ‘don’t know’ responses may be because students did not perceive a need for academic skill development, or that they took the initiative to gain skill information from other sources, such as the internet, which appears to be a key resource for students. Results from the pilot and strand 1 data highlighted the importance of the internet to students, with 100% (pilot) and 98% (strand 1) of students indicating that internet resources were available to them. In chapter 4 consideration was given to whether Masters’ level students are more self- directed and skilled in sourcing reliable internet resources, whereas the same may not be true of Foundation Degree students who made up the 41.5% (n=17) of respondents who used the internet as a source of academic skill development. Arndell, et al. (2013) specifically identify the ability to evaluate resources for scholarly merit as one of two key skills required in the first term of undergraduate level study. However, when asked in strand 1 if internet searching is an ‘academic skill’, 27.9% (n=12) of respondents
146
indicated ‘no’. Analysis of these results in chapter 4 revealed that 91.7% (n=11) of Masters’ Degree students viewed internet searching as an academic skill, compared to 30.0% (n=6) of Foundation Degree and 45.5% (n=5) of Bachelor Degree students who did not. This would seem to imply that Masters’ Degree students understand the ramifications of searching for and utilising internet resources, whereas undergraduate students may not, thereby corroborating the views of Arndell, et al. (2013). The findings from this research study would therefore seem to suggest that although ODL students are aware of internet resources to facilitate the development of their academic skills, undergraduate students should be given explicit direction to robust internet resources and training to ensure they are skilled in evaluating resources for scholarly merit.
This research study has demonstrated variance in students’ understanding about the availability of academic skill development opportunities and this may be indicative that academic skill development is not widely or routinely embedded within course design. Since the inception of this research study a suite of online resources have been
developed at the HEI at which I am employed. Although tutors are encouraged to direct students to these resources, there is no explicit strategy to promote the embedding of specific resources at timely stages within curricula. This finding is supported by Jones and Thomas (2006) who argue that post 1992 universities in particular have made little change to traditional 3 year courses in terms of skill support, relying instead on ‘bolt on’ services (Bennett, Dunne and Carré, 2000). Although there was evidence from the strand 2 qualitative interviews to suggest some modules include relevant skill development for an assignment, this appeared to be on an ad hoc basis for isolated modules and not a strategy employed across entire course curricula. ‘Skill development opportunities provided by the HEI’ are one element of the conceptual framework for this study. Following this integration of the QUAN and QUAL data, the evidence suggests this remains a key aspect of academic skill development for students and thus this will remain part of the conceptual framework in this format.
To summarise, the main considerations in the availability of academic skill development opportunities for ODL students are:
Communication strategies utilised by tutors to inform students about the opportunities available to them
Explicit direction to the academic skill development opportunities available to them.
147
6.2 Students’ preferences for academic skill development opportunities