McNamara, Lawrence --- "Why Teaching Matters and Technology Doesn't: An Evaluation and Review of Web-base Lectures" [2000] LegEdRev 7; (2000) 11(2) Legal Education Review 175
[*] Division of Law, Macquarie University.
Email: lmcnamar@law.law.mq.edu.au.
© 2001. (2000) Legal Educ Rev 175.
This article requires the same acknowledgements as its companion Part I piece: L McNamara, Lecturing (and not Lecturing) Using the Web: Developing a Teaching Strategy for Web-based Lectures (Flexible Delivery in a First Year Law Subject, Part I) 11 Legal Educ Rev 149. I would also like to thank Amanda Halpin for research assistance in the evaluation process.
[1] The project was funded through the UWS Macarthur “Flexlearn” grants scheme with support from the UWS Macarthur Faculty of Law (now the UWS School of Law). The grant applicants were myself (as project coordinator) and Professor Robin Woellner, Dean of the Faculty of Law at UWS Macarthur.
[2] L McNamara, Lecturing (and not Lecturing) over the Web: Developing a Teaching Strategy for Web-based Lectures (Flexible Delivery in a First Year Law Subject, Part I) Legal Educ Rev.
[3] On the rationales for flexible delivery, see id.
[4] Two student focus groups were run at the conclusion of semester, though prior to the final examination. Four students participated in each group. The facilitator was a Faculty staff member who had taught the subject in previous years but had been on leave all semester and had not taught any of the students in Introduction Law or in any other subjects. Each focus group discussed the Introduction to Law web- lectures for approximately 30 minutes.
[5] Computing problems (of which there were a number concerning browser compatibility at the start of semester) rated only nine responses, which was the highest of any of the various comments made across these three categories.
[6] The web-based format attracted 38.6% of the 303 total positive comments and 32.3% of the total 161 negative comments (the high degree of concern here was consistent with the direction of the survey as a whole).
[7] Lecture content attracted 36.3% of the total positive comments and 46.5% of the total negative comments.
[8] The survey did not use the expression “teaching strategy”, nor was it expressly used in lectures. The results that follow in this section nevertheless relate quite clearly to the teaching strategy employed in the subject.
[9] The student comments were open ended but have been categorised in the analysis. In the focus groups, the web-lectures were generally regarded as better than face-to-face lectures in other subjects, though the reasons varied from convenience alone to more substantive comments such as, “It ties in the readings with the actual lecture material. Other lectures are just general principles and then you have to go and do the readings. I wouldn’t say it was a disadvantage at all doing it [over the web].”
[10] The last three years have seen a dramatic increase in student computing competency at the commencement of the course. The low numbers of students attending such classes would have been unthinkable with even the 1997 or 1998 intakes. The competency figures on entering the course are markedly higher than those described by Mark Freeman in 1997: M Freeman, Flexibility in access, interaction and assessment: the case for web-based teaching programs (1997) 13(1) Aust Jnl of Educ Tech 23, at 28. At the commencement of their subject 61% of Freeman’s students had little or # experience using the WWW, while at the start of semester in Introduction to Law only 20.3% of students had never used the web or were not confident at the start of semester. Thompson et al express a concern that entry-level students will not possess the requisite competencies and argue that the literature supports their fears: R Thompson, J Winterfield & M Flanders, Into the world of electronic classrooms: a passport to flexible learning (1998) 29(2) Br Jnl of Educ Tech 177, at 177-79. The experience in Introduction to Law does not fully support that fear; perhaps the rate of change with regard to fairly straightforward Internet use is changing rapidly.
[11] Freeman (1997), id, again provides a point of comparison. In June 1997, 10% of his students had Internet access from home. Of the survey respondents in Introduction to Law, it appears that approximately 70% had access from home, with that access being suitably convenient for 60% of the respondents to make it their principal point of access. While the increase is rapid and substantial, it cannot be presumed that it will continue to rise at this rate, nor can it be assumed that students will all wish to use their home access (factors working against home access as a preference could include the quality of printing at home).
[12] For instance, when printing through university systems, students will often pay up to 20 cents per page, which over a semester may add up to $30 extra (per subject) to student costs after lecture notes and assignment questions are printed from a web page. This, in addition to often expensive law texts, represents a substantial increase in costs for students. This may be particularly so where the web page is in addition to rather than in substitution for face-to-face teaching and thus there are no associated savings (for example reduced transport costs to university because students need to attend campus on fewer days than would otherwise be the case).
[13] It may be wise to be a little sceptical of this result. It is possible that the 47 students who did not attend the seminar classes in the final week (or at least not in the first 15 minutes when the surveys were completed) also did not access the page as regularly as those who did attend the final tutorials.
[14] This is particularly worrying in flexible delivery where, as Nikolova & Collis note, “the active learner assumption is axiomatic.” I Nikolova & B Collis, Flexible learning and design of instruction (1998) 29 Br Jnl of Educ Tech 59, at 60.
[15] A second area of possible correlation may relate to the academic standing of the particular respondent. The survey did not ask respondents to identify their anticipated grade in the subject and so # conclusions can be drawn in this respect.
[16] M Le Brun & R Johnstone, The Quiet (R)evolution: Improving Student Learning in Law (Sydney: Law Book Company, 1994) 89-90. See P Candy, Evolution, Revolution or Devolution: Increasing Learner Control in the Instructional Setting, in D Boud & V Griffin, Appreciating Adults Learning from the Learners’ Perspective (London: Kogan Page, 1993) 162-63.
[17] R Clark, Student Opinion of Flexible Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, in W Wade et al eds, Flexible Learning in Higher Education (London: Kogan Page, 1994) 137-38, notes numerous positives, including the ability to work at one’s own pace, the opportunity for students to gauge their own starting level depending on prior experience, and the refreshing experience of a different and student-centred approach to learning.
[18] A Jones & D Jones, Student orientations to independent learning (1996) 15(1) HERD 83.
[19] J Scott, J Buchanan & N Haigh, Reflections on student-centred learning in a large class setting (1997) 28 Br Jnl of Educ Tech 19.
[20] Jones & Jones, supra note 18. They note, however, the complexity in identifying correlations between learning and teaching strategies and learning outcomes.
[21] Clark, supra note 17.
[22] Id at 142, quoting a student comment.
[23] Id at 143.
[24] Oliver & Omari also highlight the value students in their study placed on the face-to-face component of teaching: R Oliver & A Omari, Using online technologies to support problem based learning: Learners’ responses and perceptions (1999) 15 Aust Jnl of Educ Tech 58, at 77.
[25] Clark, supra note 17, at 144-45.
[26] Scott, Buchanan & Haigh, supra note 19, at 27-28.
[27] Clark, supra note 17, at 145. On preparing students, see also T Greening, WWW support of student learning: A case study (1998) 14 Aust Jnl of Educ Tech 49, at 55-56.
[28] Clark, supra note 17, at 145.
[29] Id at 146.
[30] Jones & Jones, supra note 18, at 92.
[31] Id at 92, 93.
[32] Scott, Buchanan & Haigh, supra note 19, at 28.
[33] See P Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London: Routledge, 1992) 62-63; Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 16, at 100-12.
[34] Jones & Jones, supra note 18.
[35] One reviewer of this article suggested that in spite of the request for response, “students are seldom altruistic and will only do what will ultimately help them get ‘better marks.’” While there is nothing in the evaluation to suggest that this was the case in Introduction to Law, it would be consistent with the recognition that student approaches to learning are strongly driven by assessment, and thus by marks.
[36] This is consistent with the Open University’s research findings that “the real key to the successful application of technology is good teaching.” P Thomas et al, A holistic approach to supporting distance learning using the Internet: transformation, not translation (1998) 29 Br Jnl of Educ Tech 149, at 161. The research by Nowaczyk, Santos & Patton takes an approach, which starts from the significance of technology, looking at “the effectiveness of multi-media as a positive influence in the learning process” (at 367). They explore student perceptions of video and graphics but do so from a technological and psychological viewpoint. The outcomes they describe (at 378-81) are nevertheless framed in students’ perceptions of the ways in which the materials and their content – not the media itself – influence the student learning process. The authors prefer, however, to discuss their conclusions in terms of the media: R Nowaczyk, L Santos & C Patton, Student perception of multimedia in the undergraduate classroom (1998) 25 Int’l Jnl of Instructional Media 367.
[37] This is one of Owston’s three key themes in his discussion of the Internet as it might be used in primary, secondary and higher education: R Owston, The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and Learning? (1997) 26(2) Educ Researcher 27, at 29-30.
[38] P Candy, Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1991) 250-51, drawing on R Saljo, Learning in the Learner’s Perspective II: Differences in Awareness Report of the Institute of Education (Goteborg, Sweden: Institute of Education, University of Goteborg, 1979) # 77, at 19.
[39] Id at 251.
[40] Id at 250-51. Candy draws on the conceptions of learning identified by Saljo of which the most sophisticated are learning as the abstraction of meaning and learning as an interpretive process aimed at understanding reality.
[41] Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 16, at 90 (footnotes omitted). See further at 90-97.
[42] Clark, supra note 17, at 147.
[43] The difficulties for many students go # doubt beyond what can be countered by such general strategies, or even within the academic environment alone. For a discussion of motivation and emotional aspects of learning and their impact on self-learning aims, see Ann Brown, Motivation to Learn and Understand: On Taking Charge of One’s Own Learning (1988) 5 Cognition and Instruction 311.
[44] A comment on a student survey in Introduction to Law.
[45] Le Brun & Johnstone, supra note 16, at 47 state that they wrote not only for law teachers but also for law students.
[46] P Taylor, Reflections on students’ conceptions of learning and perceptions of learning environments (1996) 15(2) HERD 223, at 235. The last phrase is especially pertinent given the absence of feedback through the web-lectures. See also B McCombs & R Marzano, Putting the Self- Self-Regulated Learning: The Self as Agent in Integrating Will and Skill (1990) 25 Educ Psychologist 51.
[47] There is perhaps an implicit assumption here that this process will continue after the foundation subject. Mark Israel, Teaching criminology through interview-based assignments [1997] LegEdRev 7; (1997) 8(2) Legal Educ Rev 141, at 144, notes that the literature suggests academics often encounter resistance from colleagues in pursuing such projects. This is to some extent inherent given the necessary freedom of academia. There is perhaps also the research-driven selection and promotion criteria; I suspect that few law academics would disagree with the proposition that in spite of the rhetoric about how much teaching matters, what really matters within the academy is research (especially due to the funding implications) and this is never clearer than at the point of promotion and recruitment. With the pressure to research so strong, teaching innovation or change is often bound to take second place.
[48] Ramsden, supra note 33, at 62-63 (emphasis in original); for an illustration of the significance of perceptions in a reading task, see 41-42.
[49] A discussion page would be threaded by the subject coordinator, but not contributed to by staff. It would provide a forum for students to learn from each other. Allison Brown provides an excellent analysis of collaborative learning through discussion pages: A Brown, Designing for learning: What are the essential features of an effective online course? (1997) 13(2) Aust Jnl of Educ Tech 115, at 118-22.
[50] Such an outcome may parallel the situation described by Ramsden, supra note 33, at 63-64. See also the discussion in part I of this article, McNamara, supra note 2.
[51] D Boud, Assessment and the Promotion of Academic Values (1990) 15 Studies in Higher Educ 101, at 103.
[52] J Barnes, The Functions of Assessment: A re-examination [1991] LegEdRev 10; (1990-91) 2 Legal Educ Rev 177, at 181.
[53] On assessment as a teaching strategy, see id at 180-98, 212.
[54] The benefits listed are concerned with teaching and learning. Other benefits would also arise; for instance, printing costs for students are reduced by removing the administrative aspects of the lecture from the web-guide and into a different section of the subject web page. Most administrative matters would not require printing. This would go at least some way to addressing equity issues and cost.
[55] This should have perhaps been the question asked in the survey for Starting Out.
[56] See McNamara, supra note 2.
[57] This should not be taken as acquiescence to the present quantum or distribution of research funding in higher education, nor agreement with the mechanisms for the determination of such funding.