Designing engagement with others: students’ perspectives of distance learning
Transcripts of three focus groups were analysed to identify themes and experiences of distance learning students, specifically about how their courses supported engagement with others, both tutors and other learners. One of the focus groups consisted of learners from the Open University. The other t...
Gespeichert in:
1. Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Format: | Report |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Transcripts of three focus groups were analysed to identify themes and experiences of distance learning students, specifically about how their courses supported engagement with others, both tutors and other learners. One of the focus groups consisted of learners from the Open University. The other two were from 14 other distance learning universities. The students identified four main aspects of interaction, either interactions they experienced, or wanted but did not experience. The most important for students was individual synchronous communication with a tutor. Secondary were interactions with other students, both synchronous tutorial group sessions and asynchronous discussions with other students. Tutorial group sessions were only of value when these were interactive, purely didactic sessions were of little interest. The final group of interactions were co-located group activities with peers. Although these were not (according to the students) provided by institutions, these were organised by the students. The overall observation is that the course design that students experience may be very different from the courses institutions consider themselves to be providing. Some aspects might not be apparent to students, or not taken up, and others that are not supported by institutions may be supplemented by the students. Another series of observations were points where students misconceived topics, or conflated ideas. Terms like face-to-face, were used for one-to-one distanced communication by younger students. Preferences for co-located activities organised by institutions were due to the lack of one-to-one support or social connections provided online. When online alternatives were suggested these were said to be sufficient. This suggests that in surveying students, the different modes and terminology will need to be clarified. There were also inconsistencies with some students in their seeking out of social learning spaces, but avoiding social interactions online, which requires further investigation. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.21954/ou.se.24352849 |