Implications for the scheduling of theory versus application in learning

This paper presents the findings of an experiment which looked at the effects of performing applied tasks (action learning) prior to the completion of the theoretical learning of these tasks (explanation-based learning), and vice-versa. The applied tasks took the form of laboratories for the Object-Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD) course, theoretical learning was via lectures.

Web-based course support systems: an essential tool for supporting flexible learning environment

In Higher Education web-based course support systems are essential for supporting flexible learning environments. They provide tools to enable the interaction between student and tutor to reinforce transfer of theory to understanding particularly in an academic environment, therefore this paper will examine issues associated with the use of curriculum and learning resources within Web-based course support systems and the effectiveness of the resulting flexible learning environments This paper is a general discussion about flexible learning and in this case how it was applied to one of the courses at undergraduate level one. The first section will introduce what is flexible learning and the importance of flexible learning in Higher Education followed by the description of the course and why the flexible learning concepts is important in such a course and finally, how the flexibility was useful for this particular instance.

Student Experience of E-Learning (SEEL)

The Student Experience of E-Learning project (SEEL) was an institutional response to the university’s HEA/JISC Benchmarking exercise (Ryan and Kandler, 2007). The study had a social constructivist approach which recognised the importance of listening to the student voice (JISC 2007) within the University of Greenwich context, to interpret the student experience of e-learning. Nearly 1000 students responded to an online survey on their approaches to, and their use of, learning technology. The quantitative and qualitative questions used included identifying study patterns, using specific online tools, within the context of learning and beyond, and student’s attitudes towards using e-learning in their studies. Initially, individual responses to questions were analysed in depth, giving a general indication of the student experience. Further depth was applied through a filtering mechanism, beginning with a cross-slicing of individual student responses to produce cameos. Audio logs and individual interviews were drawn from these cameos. Analysis of the cameos is in progress but has already revealed some unexpected results. There was a mismatch between students’ expectations of the university’s use of technology and their experiences and awareness of its possible use in other contexts. Students recognised the importance of social interaction as a vehicle for learning (Vygotsky 1978, Bruner 2006) but expressed polarised views on the use of social networking sites such as Facebook for e-learning. Their experiences in commercial contexts led them to see the university VLE as unimaginative and the tutors’ use of it as lacking in vision. Whereas analysis of the individual questions provided a limited picture, the cameos gave a truer reflection of the students lived experiences and identified a gulf between the university’s provision and the students’ expectation of e-learning and their customary use of technology. However it is recognised that the very nature of an online survey necessarily excludes students who chose not to engage, either through lack of skills or through disillusionment and this would constitute a separate area for study.

An evaluation of the implementation of hand held health records with adults with learning disabilities: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: Personal health records were implemented with adults with learning disabilities (AWLD) to try to improve their health-care. Materials and Method: Forty GP practices were randomized to the Personal Health Profile (PHP) implementation or control group. Two hundred and one AWLD were interviewed at baseline and 163 followed up after 12 months intervention (PHP group). AWLD and carers of AWLD were employed as research interviewers. AWLD were full research participants. Results: Annual consultation rates in the intervention and control groups at baseline were low (2.3 and 2.6 visits respectively). A slightly greater increase occurred over the year in the intervention group 0.6 ()0.4 to 1.6) visits ⁄ year compared with controls. AWLD in PHP group reported more health problems at follow-up 0.9 (0.0 to 1.8). AWLD liked their PHP (92%) but only 63% AWLD and 55% carers reported PHP usage. Carers had high turnover (34%). Conclusions: No significant outcomes were achieved by the intervention.