AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Legal Education Digest

Legal Education Digest
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Legal Education Digest >> 2012 >> [2012] LegEdDig 30

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Sayles, F; Te Wiata, I --- "Mixing it up: experiences with the combined use of technology and other methods to enhance learning" [2012] LegEdDig 30; (2012) 20(2) Legal Education Digest 47


Mixing it up: experiences with the combined use of technology and other methods to enhance learning

F Sayles and I Te Wiata

Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association, Vol 4 No 1&2, 2011, pp 65-80

In colloquial terms the phrase ‘to mix it up’ means to engage in some form of confrontation or battle. In a real sense, this describes the process of engaging different methods of teaching undertaken while researching this paper – it has been a battle to establish an effective learning environment for business students undertaking a business law course. In 2007, the process included introducing the use of technology to enhance students’ learning experiences. Between 2007 and 2011, the use of these technological tools has increased so that these tools now form a major part of the learning process for both off- and on-campus students.

This article considers some of the reasons why particular tools and strategies were chosen; the ways in which the tools and strategies used interact with face-to-face sessions; and the strengths and limitations of each (from the perspective of both students and the teacher).

Teacher research can be described as a context-driven inquiry that places participants as the ‘knowledge holders’ and the ‘knowledge seekers’. The methodology looks to introduce change as a result of a purposeful investigation within the researched environment and also involves a re-evaluation of the ways in which this change has succeeded in resolving issues that were identified by the participants.

The teacher research view also holds that research about teaching and learning does not observe a rigid adherence to formal methods of data collection. Knowledge can be created through descriptions of spontaneous events and the interpretations of these events by the observer.

Formal academic views suggest that many teacher research projects provide only a practical, context-specific form of knowledge that is unsuitable for dissemination to a wider audience because it cannot be generalised. The teacher research view maintains that knowledge generated by teacher research projects may be ‘local’ knowledge, but that publication of ‘how teachers theorise and interpret their work’ can be useful to the broader teaching community.

There were several reasons for this choice of research methodology. One of the main reasons was that this form of applied research has been closely linked to reflective practice, which is the approach to teaching used by the teacher undertaking the research. The teacher adopted this model of teaching after a decision to move from a transmission model of teaching to a student-focused model.

The main source of data for this research has been the teacher’s observations. These entries contain descriptions of the events, and primary assessment of those events in light of information from two other sources – student perceptions and relevant literature. These reflections have formed the basis for implementing changes to the teaching methods used. This process has been continually repeated to assess the impact of any changes and to produce further lines of inquiry.

Student perceptions, referred to in this paper as ‘student feedback’ or ‘student comments’, have been obtained through university-administered teaching evaluation surveys for the course, teacher administered surveys, and teacher–student dialogue.

The teacher-administered surveys were conducted in 2005 and 2011. The 2005 survey was administered only to the on-campus students. This survey consisted of closed and open questions that asked students to evaluate which topics taught were the ‘hardest’ and the reason why students found them difficult. The first 2011 survey was administered to both the on- and off-campus students and asked both open and closed questions about student experiences with a variety of teaching tools. The second 2011 survey was conducted only with off-campus students. It asked for students’ preferences as to study materials being available in electronic or hard-copy form.

The informal teacher–student dialogue took place through one-on-one and group discussions, emails, telephone conversations, and online discussion postings and comments.

The primary type of data that has been used to guide teacher reflection and implement strategies for change has been qualitative data. The main reason for using qualitative data is that it has added to the observation experience of the teacher in a more meaningful way than statistical data.

The teacher journals and student feedback have been coded into three main themes, and a number of sub-themes.

The teacher compared the student feedback to teacher observations to detect similarity and differences between the teacher’s and students’ perceptions of student engagement with the content for a particular year.

An early observation (in 2004-06) made by the teacher that indicated there may be issues with the learning environment occurred when assessing student assignments and exams. It was noted that students generally performed well when explaining legal rules but many students had difficulties when applying these rules to fact scenarios. The teacher reflected that the inability to apply information to new situations could in some situations be a result of ‘surface learning’, where students focus on tasks such as memorising and recall for the purposes of specific assessments rather than using other levels of thought, such as reflection and analysis of the topics. This means that students engaging in surface learning may have success in assessments that are geared towards the ability to recall facts or figures, but struggle in demonstrating how those facts relate to one another.

This idea was also supported by the fact that the predominant teaching model being used was the transmission model of teaching, where students are generally expected to remember the information provided and repeat it back on request. This indicated that a change in teaching style could result in a change in student learning approaches to the course.

It was decided that a change to the teaching model should incorporate an active learning approach. The activities may include dialogue with the teacher or other students, or it may be self-testing activities.

Student feedback from pre-2007 cohorts confirmed the need to move towards a more active means of teaching, since it suggested that many of the students may have experienced difficulties with ‘distance’. While this distance is increased when there is physical distance, it can also occur when teacher and students engage in face-to-face learning. The ability to reduce transactional distance can depend on the extent to which students and teachers interact in dynamic dialogue and the degree of flexibility within a program to adjust to student needs.

The teacher considered that incorporating active learning could enhance ‘dynamic dialogue’.

The success of some activities can depend wholly on the existing knowledge base of the student as suggested by Brookfield, who commented that the idea of cutting down lecturing as it ‘induces passivity in students and kills critical thinking’ may not always be a good idea – students still need grounding in the subject. A lack of grounding, or base knowledge, can impact on the ability of the students to respond to learning challenges, such as developing their own critical analysis of a topic.

The teacher’s reflections led to a twofold strategy to address the aim of enhancing the learning experience and student engagement with the content. The objectives were to (1) increase student success by using a variety of learning tools that cater for differences in learning styles and student abilities; and (2) encourage active learning by providing opportunities for interaction among both on- and off-campus students.

The learning tools provided to students are a mix of resources. Some resources provide new information to students, designed to give them grounding in the various topics in the course.

Presenter is an Adobe add-on that allows audio files, videos and quizzes to be inserted into a PowerPoint presentation. Students view each PowerPoint slide and hear the associated commentary. The teacher used this tool to provide base knowledge (lectures) on topics in the course.

By 2010, all topics in the paper had a Presenter lecture for off-campus students to access. The presenter lectures were not given to on-campus students as an addition to traditional face-to-face lectures – Presenter took the place of those lectures. The reason for this decision was to allow students more time to engage in active learning opportunities, such as discussion and working together to solve problem-based questions.

Student feedback from off-campus students between 2007 and 2011 and on-campus students in 2011 on the use of presenter highlighted some common themes. Students commented that Presenter enhanced their learning by allowing them to listen to the lectures more than once.

A major technical limitation for the presenter lectures was that they could be made available only online via a web link. These files can be saved as PDF files, but often they are very large which makes uploading and downloading difficult. This meant that students needed internet access to retrieve and listen to the files.

Off-campus students commented in the second 2011 survey that, after spending all day in front of a computer at work, they welcomed opportunities to study away from a computer.

To overcome the problem of Presenter lectures being available only online, it is intended in future to upload the MP3 audio files (which are smaller and so can be more easily uploaded or downloaded) to the course website, along with the PowerPoint files and the presenter web link.

The aim of Presenter was to provide on-campus students with base knowledge that they could use to engage in active learning situations – it was never intended as a ‘stand-alone’ method of teaching. It was therefore concerning that a number of on-campus students (approximately 40 per cent) did not attend the face-to-face sessions regularly. The access difficulties mentioned by students may have contributed to the rate of non-attendance as the students may have felt they were not prepared. Another contributing factor could be the learning styles of students and their attitudes and concepts of learning. In this situation, it is possible that some students wished to engage in this course as passive learners so did not feel that the face-to-face active learning sessions would enhance their own learning.

In the course, the ‘passive teaching’ was via the presenter lectures. This meant that, for the students who wanted to engage in passive learning, the computer-based aspect of the subject fulfilled their learning needs rather than face-to-face delivery.

Another factor related to student learning styles is that on-campus students may have been used to lower levels of self-directed learning. With traditional on-campus learning, students are told when and where they have to attend lectures and workshops – they often have little or no experience of self-managing their learning. With the Presenter lectures, students had to make their own decisions about how and when they listened. If students did not manage their time appropriately, they may have found that they had not covered the material in time for the face-to-face sessions.

Although it is desirable to move students towards more self-directed learning, in this situation, it could be that ‘the evolution was too abrupt’ and that ‘the sudden influx of freedom coupled with a lack of guidance and support’ led to some students being unable to cope. To overcome this, it would be preferable to work on gradually building self-directed learning skills by providing more precise information on how to manage their time initially, but then introducing activities to allow students to obtain skills so that they can manage their own learning program.

The Personal Response System (PRS) works via hand-held control pads that link to a receiver. Students input their responses to multiple-choice or true/false questions or statements on the pad and send the answer to the receiver. These answers are collated by the software which displays a graph of the overall responses. The questions are incorporated into a PowerPoint file, so can be used as part of a full presentation or can be set up as a separate session.

The PRS provides a greater opportunity for student interaction compared to traditional face-to-face means of interacting, since the responses are anonymous (when the graph is shown, neither the students nor the lecturer are able to identify who has given each response). This anonymity assists in obtaining the views of less confident students who may not respond in a traditional manner (show of hands) for fear of giving an incorrect response.

As a larger number of students respond to questions posed via the PRS systems (the teacher observed that in each session there was approximately a 95 per cent response rate), this allows the teacher to better gauge the overall understanding of the class in respect of certain topics.

System capability is another consideration before choosing PRS. This can include whether the questions have to be set in advance, or if they can be added in during a face-to-face session. The current PRS must be set up in advance, so it does not allow for opportunities that may arise during sessions to pose additional questions through the control pads. Instead, any additional questions must be posed in a more traditional way. Another concern with the current system is that students are only able to answer from a pre-set range of options – there is no facility for students to input text. This limits both the range of answers and the degree of dialogue.

The manner in which the PRS is likely to be used is another factor to consider when choosing a system. If the teacher wishes to use the PRS to create discussion about the results and why student chose an answer, it is suggested to use a system that allows for polling without the need to assign a ‘correct’ answer to the answer the question posed. By removing the label, students can discuss their answers more freely and the lecturer can guide the students towards a correct answer rather than forcing them to the answer (assuming the questions have a right/wrong aspect).

Connect is an online meeting room in which students and the teacher can participate in ‘real time’ meetings. The meeting room contains different ‘pods’ for discussion and for sharing resources, such as a computer screen, videos and PowerPoint. The two main objectives in using this tool were to allow off-campus students opportunities to engage in active learning and to help build a sense of community with their learning.

The Connect program can allow the teacher to use audio and also a webcam to communicate with the students. The students respond either with audio or by using text pods to type in answers, questions and comments.

Regardless of which method of communication is used, Connect can present challenges to both student and teacher. When students have audio rights, they will usually have to ‘raise their hand’ and wait to speak so there is not the same flow of conversation that occurs in face-to-face teaching. Also, the teacher must be vigilant to ensure that each speaker is given equal opportunity so that the conversation does not end up being ‘controlled’ by a small group of students. Students who communicate by typing can input questions or comments whenever they wish, which does allow more student freedom as to when they want to communicate – but expertise on a keyboard may be a limiting factor for some students.

In a face-to-face session, a student may use a number of physical gestures to show their lack of understanding about information being relayed to them. This provides the teacher with clues that further information, or a different way of explaining the information, is required. With connect, unless communication involves the use of visual aids such as webcams, most of these non-verbal clues may be missing.

If teachers are aware of the communication challenges, and are able to adapt their teaching style to the connect environment, this tool can be a very effective means of promoting active learning for off-campus students.

The aim of the role play was to introduce main ideas and concepts that relate to a particular area of law before students were informed of the specific legal rules that relate to that area of law.

The role play also served the purpose of providing students with a personal experience that they could later use to associate with the specific legal rules.

The use of role play can therefore enhance students’ abilities to make connections between their experiences and new knowledge of the legal rules that impact on that experience.

In the years prior to introducing tools such as presenter and connect, the pass rate was generally in the 80 per cent to 90 per cent range; the number of students not completing was in the 30 per cent to 40 per cent range; and the GPA was around 2. In the four years following the introduction of the technology, all of these measures have been consistently higher. The effect on student retention rates is especially noteworthy, and could indicate some success in reducing the effects of distance, which can lead to feelings of isolation and low retention rates.

With the on-campus students, the main forms of technology used until 2011 were PRS and access to some recorded connect tutorials that had been done with off-campus students. The on-campus students also engaged in role play from 2007 onwards and also had a free choice assignment. In 2011, the students had all base content delivered through presenter, rather than face-to-face lectures. The results for these students are mixed; however, there does appear to be some improvement in retention rates, pass rates and GPA.

It is of some concern that the pass rate in 2011 is lower than in 2010 and the GPA lower in 2011 than the previous four years, since 2011 represented a much higher use of mixed methods. However, these results may in part be due to student abilities – there have been a series of ‘up and down’ results since 2007. It may also be due to the factors that have been previously discussed in relation to student learning styles and self-directed learning. What is of note is that, in 2011, students who regularly attended the face-to-face sessions on average performed better than students who did not attend. While this could suggest that it is a mix of learning opportunities (passive and active) that fully enhances student success, it must also be acknowledged that these students may have had higher levels of self-management or compatible learning styles which would account for success in this learning environment.

The efforts to ‘mix it’ were aimed at enhancing learning through the use of a variety of learning tools that would recognise different learning styles, increase active learning opportunities and therefore reduce the gap between learner, other learners and the teacher.

Student feedback has generally been positive from off-campus students that the use of mixed methods created a sense of community and enhanced their learning experience.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdDig/2012/30.html