Coping, conversation tactics and marital interaction in persons with acquired profound hearing loss (APHL): correlates of distress

This study investigated coping strategies, conversation tactics, and marital interaction in acquired profound hearing loss (APHL) and compared emotionally stable (n = 15) and emotionally distressed (n = 7) participants. Nominated family members were assessed on most measures. Comparisons were also made in the subgroup of married participants. A combined distress criterion was derived from scores on standardized measures of anxiety, depression, hearing handicap, and post-traumatic stress. Groups were compared on the Ways-of-Coping Checklist, a newly devised measure of conversation tactics, and on the Couple Behaviour Report. It was found that distressed APHL participants were more likely to cope through avoidance, self-blame, and wishful thinking, and they used more avoidant tactics in conversation. The coping profile of family members did not differentiate distress groups. However, there was some indication of greater employment of coercive tactics by family members of distressed participants. The results are consistent with the view that the coping style of a person with APHL and the nature of their conversational interactions with family members contribute to their level of distress. Implications for audiological rehabilitation are discussed.

Experts on e-learning: insights gained from listening to the student voice!

The Student Experience of e-Learning Laboratory (SEEL) project at the University of Greenwich was designed to explore and then implement a number of approaches to investigate learners’ experiences of using technology to support their learning. In this paper members of the SEEL team present initial findings from a University-wide survey of nearly a 1000 students. A selection of 90 ‘cameos’, drawn from the survey data, offer further insights into personal perceptions of e-learning and illustrate the diversity of students experiences. The cameos provide a more coherent picture of individual student experience based on the totality of each person’s responses to the questionnaire. Finally, extracts from follow-up case studies, based on interviews with a small number of students, allow us to ‘hear’ the student voice more clearly. Issues arising from an analysis of the data include student preferences for communication and social networking tools, views on the ‘smartness’ of their tutors’ uses of technology and perceptions of the value of e-learning. A primary finding and the focus of this paper, is that students effectively arrive at their own individualised selection, configuration and use of technologies and software that meets their perceived needs. This ‘personalisation’ does not imply that such configurations are the most efficient, nor does it automatically suggest that effective learning is occurring. SEEL reminds us that learners are individuals, who approach learning both with and without technology in their own distinctive ways. Hearing, understanding and responding to the student voice is fundamental in maximising learning effectiveness. Institutions should consider actively developing the capacity of academic staff to advise students on the usefulness of particular online tools and resources in support of learning and consider the potential benefits of building on what students already use in their everyday lives. Given the widespread perception that students tend to be ‘digital natives’ and academic staff ‘digital immigrants’ (Prensky, 2001), this could represent a considerable cultural challenge.