Student preparedness for university e-learning environments
Introduction
Prensky (2001) argues that the rapid proliferation of digital technologies over the past decades has had a profound influence on the students we teach. According to Prensky, a “discontinuity” has developed and as a consequence, society can now be broadly categorized into two groups, “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” (2001, p.1, 3). As digital natives, students today “are all ‘native speakers’ of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet” (Prensky, 2001, p.1).
Prensky's work, which has subsequently been expanded upon by other authors, has led to the idea that the post 1980s generation—those who have grown up with access to computers and the Internet—are “inherently technology-savvy” (Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Vojt, 2011, p. 429). In a university context, which has seen the rise of e-learning as the preferred method of course delivery, it might seem reasonable to expect that these technologically-savvy, digital native students would be well suited for such learning environments. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that students often to struggle with e-learning. Further evidence can be found in attrition rates for e-learning courses which are generally higher than for traditional face-to-face courses (Waugh & Su-Searle, 2014). All of these act to question the preparedness of students for university e-learning environments.
This paper reports the results of a study designed to explore the preparedness of students within the context of a university e-learning environment. In this study, students and staff at a regional university in New South Wales, Australia were asked to rate 58 e-learning competencies according to their level of student preparedness. These e-learning competencies had been previously developed using a process known as Hybrid BARS.
The original motivation for the study was a response to a series of questions posed by Arif (2001), on the preparedness of students for e-learning:
As a starting point, is the student well prepared for using the computer technology? Then, is the student competent in using the Web for accessing course content and navigating through it easily? Moving towards educational concepts, is the student well equipped for self-assessment and judgment to adapt new directions in learning? Finally, the ultimate question, is the student ready for a change in the old studying techniques to the new ones? (p. 37)
Coincidently, the works of Prensky and Arif are contemporaneous. However, while Prensky argues that as ‘digital natives’ students should be well prepared for e-learning, Arif questions to what extent students actually are. The aim of the study reported in this paper was to look beyond the supposed preparedness of students for university e-learning environments in order to determine their actual preparedness for such environments.
Section snippets
Literature review
Despite the rapid proliferation and increased popularity of e-learning at the university level, very little research appears to have been done on the preparedness or readiness of students for such learning environments. One of the earlier studies on student readiness for online learning was conducted by Warner, Christie, and Choy (1998) using a sample drawn from the Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector. Results indicated that students were not sufficiently prepared for, or
Data collection
Student and staff e-learning stakeholders at a regional university in New South Wales, Australia were asked to rate, via a web-based survey, 58 e-learning competencies according to their level of student preparedness. Stakeholders were selected based upon the basis of either having previous learning (for students) or teaching experience (for staff) with e-learning. The e-learning competencies rated had previously been identified using a process known as the Hybrid Behaviorally Anchored Rating
Results
To facilitate analysis, the identified e-learning competencies were classified into three broad categories based upon those used by Birch (2002). This was done to help determine whether any patterns or trends could be identified in the preparedness ratings of the e-learning competencies (Table 2).
Preparedness ratings were initially analyzed using Frequency Analysis in the form of cumulative percentages and then using Rasch Analysis.
Perceptions of relative preparedness
Classification of the e-learning competencies according to ‘Very Prepared’, ‘Prepared’, and ‘Poorly Prepared’, (Appendix A) indicated an overall low level of perceived student preparedness with no e-learning competencies being identified for which students were considered to be ‘Very prepared’. Overall, there were 23 competencies for which students were considered to be ‘Prepared’ and 35 competencies for which students were considered to be ‘Poorly Prepared’.
For the 23 competencies for which
Conclusion
Results from the current study provide evidence that learning in e-learning environments developed in accordance with social constructivist principles can be challenging. Four issues that have important implications to the broader e-learning context emerged from the study.
First, students considered themselves poorly prepared in balancing work, social, family and study lives in an e-learning environment. This confirms results of previous studies which have identified similar issues associated
References (34)
Writing power into online discussion
Computers and Composition
(2006)- et al.
Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions
Computers & Education
(2010) - et al.
Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies
Computers & Education
(2011) Academic skills online: tUNEup
- et al.
Acting with integrity online: Some questions for educators
Development of a rating scale for determining competence in basketball referees: Implications for sport psychology
The Sports Psychologist
(1995)- et al.
Defining competencies for effective refereeing
Sports Coach
(1991) Learning from the web: Are students ready or not?
Educational Technology & Society
(2001)- et al.
Online learning readiness of undergraduate college students: A comparison between male and female students
The Journal of Learning in Higher Education
(2009) - et al.
The development of a questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement
Distance Education
(2004)
Elearner competencies
Undergraduate student online learning readiness
International Journal of Education Research
Models for categorical data: A comparison between the Rasch model and Nonlinear Principal Component Analysis
Statistica & Applicazioni
Technicians' perceptions about web based courses: The University of Texas system experience
American Journal of Distance Education
‘Bars’ performance rating for sales force personnel
The Journal of Marketing
A multifaceted analysis of performance criteria: Implications for the education and assessment of elite soccer officials in Australia
eSKILLS UNE
Cited by (189)
College online courses have strong design in scaffolding but vary widely in supporting student agency and interactivity
2023, Internet and Higher EducationPerceptions of Digital Learning and Teaching: The Case of a Croatian University Transition to an Emergency Digital Environment
2024, Technology, Knowledge and LearningCosmopolitanism, Digital Readiness, and Faculty Engagement in Higher Education Transformation
2024, Asia-Pacific Education ResearcherStudent motivation and engagement in online language learning using virtual classrooms: Interrelationships with support, attitude and learner readiness
2024, Education and Information TechnologiesA Hybrid Soft Computing Approach for Prediction of Cloud-Based Learning Management Systems Determinants
2024, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction