Virtual learning environments – help or hindrance for the ‘disengaged’ student?

The introduction of virtual learning environments (VLEs) has been regarded by some as a panacea for many of the problems in today’s mass numbers modular higher education system. This paper demonstrates that VLEs can help or hinder student engagement and performance, and that they should be adapted to the different types of learner. A project is described that aimed to investigate whether the introduction of a VLE can assist ‘disengaged’ students, drawing on click count tracking data and student performance. The project took place in the context of two very large undergraduate modules (850 and 567 students) in a Business School of a new university in the UK. In an adaptation of a model of learner engagement in Web-enhanced environments, four distinct learner types have emerged: model, traditionalist, geek and disengaged. There was evidence that use of the VLE exacerbated, rather than moderated, the differences between these learner types. Keywords: virtual learning environments; e-learning; self-efficacy DOI: 10.1080/09687760802657577

[1]  L. Morris,et al.  Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses , 2005, Internet High. Educ..

[2]  Neil Selwyn,et al.  Researching computers and education - glimpses of the wider picture , 2000, Comput. Educ..

[3]  D. Willis.  Academic involvement at university , 1993 .

[4]  Charles C. Manz,et al.  We think we can, we think we can, we think we can: the impact of thinking patterns and self‐efficacy on work team sustainability , 2003 .

[5]  An outward design support system to increase self‐efficacy in online teaching and learning , 2003 .

[6]  P. M. Alexander,et al.  Virtual teamwork in very large undergraduate classes , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[7]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. , 1998 .

[8]  George D. Kuh.  How Are We Doing? Tracking the Quality of the Undergraduate Experience, 1960s to the Present , 1999, The Review of Higher Education.

[9]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments , 1990 .

[10]  Sarah E MacKie.  Jumping the Hurdles – Undergraduate Student Withdrawal Behaviour , 2001 .

[11]  Myung-Geun Lee,et al.  Profiling students' adaptation styles in Web-based learning , 2001, Comput. Educ..

[12]  Anil Menon,et al.  Undergraduate Marketing Education in the 21st Century: Views from Three Institutions , 1999 .

[13]  Craig McInnis,et al.  Signs of Disengagement? The Changing Undergraduate Experience in Australian Universities. Inaugural Professorial Lecture. , 2001 .

[14]  Noel Entwistle,et al.  Styles of learning and approaches to studying in higher education , 2001 .

[15]  Mairead Brady,et al.  The impact of IT on marketing: an evaluation , 1999 .

[16]  Frank Biocca,et al.  HomeNetToo: Motivational, affective and cognitive factors and Internet use: A model to explain the racial digital divide and the Internet paradox , 2000, WebNet.

[17]  G. Boulton‐Lewis.  Teaching for quality learning at university , 2008 .

[18]  Gerlese S. Åkerlind,et al.  Enhancing Self‐Directed Learning through Educational Technology: When Students Resist the Change , 1999 .

[19]  Yair Levy,et al.  Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[20]  Javier Corredor.  General and domain-specific influence of prior knowledge on setting of goals and content use in museum websites , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[21]  R. D'amico.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison , 1978, Telos.

[22]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[23]  M. Foucault,et al.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. , 1978 .

[24]  Johannes C. Cronjé.  Metaphors and models in Internet-based learning , 2001, Comput. Educ..

[25]  Shane Dawson,et al.  The impact of institutional surveillance technologies on student behaviour , 2002 .