TERRITORIALIZACIÓN APTITUDES PROPIAS DE CADA CIUDAD INTERMEDIA

which they accessed the academic skill development opportunities available to them. Figure 4.7 showed significant numbers of students did not use a variety of academic skill development opportunities, including generic university skill support opportunities, telephone tutorials, online chat and Adobe Connect tutorials. In view of the potential for skewing the data, consideration was given to the exclusion of these ‘no’ responses when analysing the frequency of students’ access to academic skill development opportunities. However, when scrutinising the raw data, anomalies were evident between students’ ‘no’ responses to their use of academic skill development

Type of interaction Group interaction One to one

interaction

Total

Yes 55 (69.85) 182 (167.15) 237

No 57 (42.15) 86 (100.85) 143

95

opportunities and ‘never’ in terms of the frequency of use. For example, 44.7% (n=17) of respondents indicated they did not use librarian support, whereas 48.8% (n=20) respondents reported ‘never’ having accessed librarian support. This and other similar discrepancies in responses were perhaps indicative of slight differences in wording between questions which led to slightly different answers, thus highlighting a flaw in the use of questionnaires and a potential limitation in the study. Having considered the implications for the study, a pragmatic decision was made for transparency in the data and therefore all responses were retained when considering students’ frequency of use. Not all strand 1 participants responded to each category, thus the total number of respondents for each category are indicated (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9: Frequency of academic skill development opportunity use Results showed frequency of access to librarian support was inconsistent. In addition to the 48.8% (n=20) of respondents previously referred to who ‘never’ accessed librarian support, 31.7% (n=13) of respondents ‘rarely’ accessed librarian support. By comparison, 9.8% (n=4) of respondents ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ accessed librarian support. This is a surprising result considering 68.3% (n=28) of respondents indicated

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Re sp o n d en ts

Frequency of use

96

that librarian support was available to them and 52.6% (n=20) of respondents used librarian support. The university library is a huge physical and digital resource which appears to not be fully utilised by ODL students, based on this data set, and will be discussed further in chapter 6.

A similar pattern was seen for frequency of access to student services tutorials, with both median and mode responses (Appendix 12) indicating students ‘never’ accessed this academic skill development opportunity. Although 56.4% (n=22) of respondents indicated student services tutorials were available (Table 4.1), 63.4% (n=26) of respondents ‘never’ accessed student services tutorials, with only 9.8% (n=4) of respondents ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ accessing these tutorials (Appendix 12). Interestingly, one respondent (R34) indicated they ‘always’ used student services tutorials. Closer inspection of their responses revealed a higher frequency in their use of generic academic skill development opportunities compared to the opportunities for personal interaction with academic staff. Although R34 ‘often’ used email contact with tutors, other opportunities such as submitting draft work for formative feedback, formative feedback following assessment and the VLE discussion forum were only used ‘sometimes’. Telephone tutorials and opportunities for conversation with

academic staff were ‘never’ used because they were unavailable. R34’s frequent use of student services tutorials may be because they were geographically close to a

university campus. Geographic location is a factor which will be discussed further in chapter 6.

Email contact with tutors was ‘often’ used by 46% (n=19) and ‘sometimes’ used by 36.6% (n=15) of respondents to this question, with median and mode responses of ‘often’. This and other opportunities for personal one to one interactions were reported earlier as being of statistical significance compared to those academic skill

development opportunities offering generic group interactions. However, the VLE discussion forum was ‘often’ (38.8%, n=15) and ‘always’ used by 28.9% (n=11) of respondents to this question. A cross-tabulation table was created in SPSS to establish if a pattern existed in the frequency of use of the VLE discussion forum across faculties (Figure 4.10). It is clear that the VLE discussion forum is used across all faculties, but it is impossible to deduce the nature of its use. The data for FST would seem to indicate the VLE discussion forum is not used for formative activities since 14.3% (n=2) of students ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ used the VLE for academic skill development opportunities. However, faculty wide use of the VLE discussion forum for academic skill development opportunities does not appear to exist based on this data set, a feature which will be discussed in chapter 6.

97

Q7i: How frequently have you used these academic skill development opportunities? - VLE discussion forum * Q2: Which faculty delivers your course? Cross-tabulation Count

Q7i: How frequently have you used these academic skill development opportunities? - VLE discussion forum

Q2: Which faculty delivers your course Total ALSS LAIBS FST FSHCE Don't

Know Never 0 0 2 0 0 2 Rarely 0 0 2 1 1 4 Sometimes 0 1 3 2 0 6 Often 0 7 6 2 0 15 Always 1 4 1 5 0 11 Total 1 12 14 10 1 38

Figure 4.10: Frequency of use of the VLE discussion forum by faculty Feedback mechanisms were also frequently used opportunities for academic skill development. Submitting draft work for formative feedback was used ‘sometimes’ (36.6%, n=15) or ‘often’ (34.1%, n=14) by respondents. Since the submission of draft work has the potential to provide a robust opportunity for enhancing students’

academic skills (Jacobs, Winnard and Elliott, 2014), it is somewhat disappointing that more than 12.2% (n=5) of respondents did not ‘always’ utilise this opportunity. It is impossible to decipher whether students made a conscious decision not to submit draft work for formative feedback or whether mechanisms were not in place within their course. Whilst the application of academic regulations does place restrictions on the volume of work that can be reviewed by academic staff, formative feedback on draft work provides diverse benefits for ODL students which also impact on the institution. This issue will be discussed in chapter 6.

Formative feedback following assessment showed a median response that students ‘often’ utilised this as an opportunity for academic skill development. However, the discrete data showed 35.7% (n=15) of respondents ‘sometimes’ used formative feedback following assessment, with only 26.2% (n=11) of respondents ‘often’ or ‘always’ using this opportunity. Whilst all students who submit work for assessment receive feedback, variation in the style and standard of feedback is likely to exist between academic staff. Even where good practice in providing formative feedback exists, students’ academic and personal development is dependent upon them reflecting upon the feedback or seeking clarification from academic staff if they do not understand how it might be applied to future assignments (Wingate, 2010). This aligns with the results from the QUAL online, audio-visual, semi-structured interviews where one interviewee explained the impact of formative feedback following assessment in

98

which her referencing skills had been described as “poor”. Whilst this had a negative impact initially on the student in terms of her feeling “very stupid”, it did prove to be a key motivator in her proactively seeking support via a generic student services tutorial. It has to be acknowledged, however, that another student might not have turned this negative comment into a positive learning opportunity. Feedback following assessment is a key opportunity for providing students with formative comments to facilitate their academic and personal development, but it is essential that academic staff apply good practice so as to avoid a negative impact on students. This will be discussed further in chapter 6.

4.9 Reasons why students use academic skill development opportunities