UEL Undergraduates Planning - Essay Example

UEL Undergraduates Planning Introduction Higher learning institutions like colleges, universities and other faculties that offer various courses to students are very important to the society as well as to the government. The institutions offer a variety of courses from which the students can choose based on their interests or preferred subject area. These institutions equip the students or learners with the skills and experience needed in the job market. This hence is a sure source of employment for the students and learners. The society also benefits both directly and indirectly from these higher learning institutions. The direct benefits of the society come as a result of the existence of these institutions within the locality of the area surrounding the community. These benefits include: community projects that can or may be fully funded by the institutions such as the construction of boreholes or water points, health faculties can also be accessed by the community members, the society also gains access to electricity by virtue of the existence of the higher learning institutions. Similarly, the community also benefits from access to good roads and telecommunication networks that are very essential for transport and communication. The benefits to the society are very many hence outweigh the disadvantages. The indirect benefits that the society enjoys from the existence of these higher learning institutions are seen through many ways. Firstly, the institutions produce very productive and industrious individuals with skills and knowledge that they will apply to stimulate economic growth in the society. This will also later provide employment opportunity to the society members and as a result an improved standard of living is realized. Secondly, the literacy levels of the society are increased since the institution educates trains and equips the students with skills that are very important life. For those reasons above, higher education learning should be very effective to enable the students to make the best of their learning in such institutions. The study conducted at the University of East London students is supposed to find out the factors that the students consider to be very important to enable them learn effectively on their courses. The study was done on 40 students picked randomly within the school. The methods used to collect the data were mainly through the use of questionnaires and interviews. The methods were made to be interactive so as to get the information directly from the students. This was done so as to obtain accurate and efficient data from the study. The study would later help both the students and the university itself to improve their learning and the learning techniques respectively. This would be realized by analyzing the findings collected from the study and coming up with concrete solutions that would enable the students to learn effectively. Findings After taking a sample of forty students from various faculties in the institution by random sampling method, it was established that 40% of the students take 5 – 6 hours in their personal studies while 60% take under 5 hours on their personal studies. The majority of the students was found to allocate a few hours to their personal studies due to the fact that during daytime, they have to attend lectures that are in most cases spread across the day with break intervals to prepare for coming lectures or go for lunch. In the wee hours of the day, most students were established to concentrate more on their social welfare than creating more time for their personal studies. 40% of the sampled students who were found to spend more time in their personal studies were serious in pursuing successfully their faculties. To enhance learning in their areas of study, 10 of sampled students were found to have established close ties with their tutors. 30 of the 40 students sampled randomly across different faculties in the institution were established to be having very less contact with their tutors most probably during lectures alone. This was due to the fact that some tutors have no central point where they can easily be accessed by the students. Also, the majority of students were always willing to juggle their way out successfully after lectures in their studies and avoid forming close ties with tutors, some of whom felt bothered by the students. 10 of the students who were established to have formed close ties with the tutors seemed to have a high ability to accomplish their faculties with the utmost best grades they could and felt being close to the tutors would enhance their chances of making it a success in their studies. A couple of them were found to be just too lazy to learn on their own and clinging close to the tutors was the only way to at least make some achievements in their studies. In the issuance of feedback/results from lecturers after assignments have been submitted to them, 35 of 40 students sampled randomly in the institution preferred that it takes less than two weeks for them to receive the feedbacks. This they felt would enhance quick learning as they would verify quickly their weakness sections as suggested by the lecturer in these feedbacks. Thereafter continuance of learning on further sections of learning would be executed as it would at the same time minimize their idle time thereby enhancing better academic success amongst students in the institution. 5 of the sampled students felt these assignment feedbacks should take probably more than a month to be issued to students. This in their view would give them more time to concentrate on their personal affairs that though not academic related, were as important to their lives as students in the institution. As an effective learning process in the institution, 34 of randomly sampled students preferred seminar presentation as the most effective technique for disseminating knowledge. This was due to the fact that these presentations are made by fellow students who have worked in groups to come up with particular findings on assignments given to them on particular sections of the curriculum. Since they are fellow students, this big percentage felt they would ask the most daring questions they won’t ask their tutors and in the process make major achievements in the learning process. 6 did not prefer a seminar presentation as they felt it takes longer time and some students who are not very serious about academics tend to ask particular questions just to pass the time. 31 of the randomly sampled students agreed to form group discussions as a way of instilling knowledge amongst them after attending lectures. The remaining 7 disagreed with the formation of group discussions with the thought that a couple of students in these groups tend not to concentrate on the main academic goals intended by the discussions. 14 of the sampled students preferred doing their assignments individually as this they thought would accurately gauge their acquisition of knowledge being disseminated to them in the institution. 26 preferred doing the assignments as a group. ANALYSIS The sample population of 40 students was done using the random sampling method of data collection. These students were picked within different sections in the school. I picked this method because the students are a homogenous group driven by a common interest; to attain the most out of their education. During the study, I used questionnaires and interviewed the respondents to collect data. I used these methods to collect data because they enhance accuracy in the data, the questionnaires saves time because it can be administered on many respondents at a time. Student faculty contact Student-faculty contact has been identified as an essential factor for motivating students toward excellent performance. Instructor characteristics such as friendliness, interest in student learning, enthusiasm, good communication skills, and accessibility to students have been identified as having a positive impact on the relationships between students and faculty (Chickering & Erhmann, 1996; Marsh, 1982; Young &Shaw, 1999). These qualities create a classroom climate where students feel comfortable approaching the lecturer for help when having problems with course assignments. Lecturer’s comments that are supportive and non-threatening in nature motivate students to complete tasks resulting in quality higher education learning on the part of the student. The majority of the students in the UEL admitted that they use the mailing list tool to communicate with their lecturers. The mailing list is used in the primarily to maintain personal communications with individuals, as well as with the study groups. The email messages is used by the lecturers to distribute announcements within the faculties, make clarifications on assignments and make responses to inquiries related general course information. The students also admitted that the lectures that came to their classes have always made a point to encourage them to visit them in their offices regularly during class to maintain productive interactions between students and faculties within the university. Overall, students reiterated that interactions with the lecturers were encouraged and maintained by the university. The analysis of the data on the students’ perception of their tutors showed that 92 % thought that they communicated effectively, 88 % accepted that they have had personalized interactions, and 78% of the students said that their lecturers were accessible. In addition, most students felt that the instructor was concerned about student learning. One student commented that he [the lecturer] was very helpful and ready to meet anytime. It helped with the understanding of the assignments given out and on the topics that proved problematic. He was very enthusiastic and interested in the learning process Encourages cooperation among students The constructivist model of instruction supports the notion that social interaction promotes student learning, (Satin, 1993; Cooper & Mueck, 1990; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991) improved thinking and deeper understanding to occur when students have the opportunity to share and respond to each other’s ideas ( Chickering & Gamson, 1996 ). Most of the students admitted that they have discussion groups apart from the normal class groups .They said that within these groups they could solve problems, discuss key concepts that they could not understand during the lectures. In addition, they also said that in these groups they could also discuss assignments. The students said that they benefited a lot from the class discussions. Most of them said that they shared knowledge and gained a deeper understanding from the discussions. Results from the questionnaire to assess cooperation among students indicate that a high percentage of students perceived that the university promotes cooperative learning activities, encouraged students to interact with one another, and allowed students to discuss assignments with their peers. It is clear from student responses that cooperative learning is very important to them in learning effectively in their courses. However, there were mixed perceptions of the effectiveness of cooperative learning through group discussions. One student said, “I enjoy working in groups. The group work really facilitates a greater understanding of the coursework”. However, a frustrated response from another student expressed, “the way the group discussions are structured, there is little accountability. Someone can joyride while everyone else does the work”. Active learning This refers to the active involvement of the students in the lecture process. Then students can engage in the lecture during seminar presentations, lecturer involving the students through questions and even asking a student to explain a concept in class to the other students. Active learning also involves the student in creating his or her own personal time to go through the previous topics that had been taught in class to internalize the concepts. Overall, student responses to interview questions to assess active learning suggest that the majority of students perceived that the seminar presentations were engaging and motivating. Students felt that the use of seminar presentations increased their understanding (85%) and those that liked it when the lecturer involving them to participate in class through oral questions (15%). They gave a reason that the lecturer involving them made them to internalize the concepts that had been taught in the previous chapters. Ninety-seven percent of students indicated that the active learning was designed to allow them to take responsibility for their own learning. Student responses suggest that the course Assignments and activities were engaging and supported the constructivist learning principle of self-directed learning. One student seconded this conclusion by noting, Learning on your own really helps to solidify the concepts on a daily basis. Encourages prompt feedback Research has been done to support the effectiveness of specific and timely feedback for enhancing task performance. Ammon’s 1956 review of published research conducted almost 50 years ago found that Lecturers’ feedback is more effective when delivered in close proximity to the time a task is performed (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). The prompt feedback on the assignments done by the students is also an important factor in helping the students learn effectively on their courses. The feedback helps the students assess where they went wrong when tackling the tasks and areas that they need to polish. The prompt feedback on result processing is important to the students in gauging their performance in the university. The prompt results motivate the students in working even harder to improve on their grades. The students' responses to the questionnaires on whether they considered prompt feedback on their result important to their effectively learning produced the following results. Ninety percent of students felt that prompt feedback was motivational. The high percentage of students (90%) indicated that the instructor motivated them to do their best as they received the feedback. One student noted, [The instructor] was very helpful, has a good teaching method and was good at giving positive as well as constructive feedback to us regarding assignments. He, another student remarked, “When I do well on my exams I always want to work even harder”. Time management Time management is another factor in helping the students in learning effectively in their courses. With proper time management the students are able to complete their assignments on time, effectively study on their course work, and understand concepts that were not clear in the class during the lectures. Approximately 99% of students interviewed said that they created some personal time to study. In addition, most students (83%) indicated that they prefer to read in the morning and at night). From the questionnaire another student wrote, I think most people learn better either very early in the morning or at night. I enjoy reading at those times because it’s always very quiet and peaceful. Conclusion Results from research suggested that the majority of students considered a lot of factors to be very important to them towards achieving the desired results in their course work. The results of the study conducted on a sample of forty students show to identify the factors that the students consider to be very important to them learn effectively on their courses. These factors were frequent student faculty contact, active learning, prompt feedback and time management. References Abrami, P. C., d’ Appollonia, S., & Cohen, P. A. (1990). Validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 219–231. Aleamoni, L. M. (1978). Development and factorial validation of the Arizona Course/Instructor Evaluation Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 1063–1067. Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153–166. American Psychological Association (1997, November). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school design and reform. Retrieved March 12, 2004 from http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html#Background Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters most in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco7 Josey-Bass. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice Hall. 230 A.W. Bangert / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 217–232 Billings, D. M. (2000). A framework for assessing outcomes and practices in web-based courses in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(2), 60–67. Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk, & K. S. Blaxter, L. Hughes, C. & Tight, M. (1998) How to Research.Buckingham: Open University Press. Collis, J. & Hussey, R. (2003) Business Research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students, second edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chickering, A. W., & Erhmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2),3–6. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Cooper, J., & Mueck, R. (1990). Student involvement in learning: Cooperative learning and college instruction. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 1, 68–76. Cross, P. K. (1999). What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know it? Innovative Higher Education, 23(2),255–270. Denscombe, M. (2002) Ground Rules for Good Research, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Gallager, S., & Newman, A. (2002, September). Distance learning at the tipping point: Critical success factors to growing fully online distance—learning programs. Retrieved March 23, 2004, from http://www.eduventures.com/research/ industry_research_resources/distancelearning.cfm Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (1997) Research Methods for Manager (2nd edition), London: Paul Chapman. Giguere, P., & Minotti, J. (2003). Developing high quality Internet-based training for adult learners. Educational Technology, 4,57–58. Graham, C., Caglitay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles for effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source. Retrieved February 19, 2004, from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=839 Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2004). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Belmont, CA7 Wadsworth. Hacker, D. J., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 53–63. Henry, G.T. (1990) Practical Sampling, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity.ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. The George Washington University School of Education and HumanDevelopment, Washington, DC. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ7 Merrill Prentice Hall. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ7 Merrill Prentice Hall. Kervin, J.B. (1992) Methods for Business Research NY: Harper Collins Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Feeney, B. C. (2001). A simple guide to SPSS for windows (for versions 8.0 & 9.0 & 10.0—revised edition). Belmont, CA7 Wadsworth. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. Lane, D. (2004, March 13). Effect size calculator. In HyperStat online (measuring effect size). Retrieved March 15, 2004 from:http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/index.html Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356–362. Lim, E. L., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Problem-solving in geometry: Comparing the effects of non- specific instruction and conventional worked examples. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 22(5), 591–612. Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. J., & Thagard, P. (1999). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York7 Kluwer Acdemic/Plenum. Marsh, H. W. (1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 77–95. Marsh, H. W. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–1197. Menges, R. J. (1994). Teaching in the age of electronic information. In W. J. McKeachie (Ed.), McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory, for college and university teachers (9th ed.). Boston, MA7 Houghton Mifflin. Millis, B. J., & Cottrell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ7 Oryx Press. Motiwalla, L., & Tello, S. (2000). Distance learning on the Internet: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(4), 253–264.No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub.L.No. 107–110.A.W. Bangert / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 217–232 231 Ogden, T. R. (2003). Applets for the Cybergnostics project Retrieved March 5, 2004 from Columbia University, Department of Biostatistics. Web site:http://www.stat.sc.edu/~west/applets/power.html Pahl, C. (2003). Managing evolution and change in Internet-based teaching and learning environments. Computers and Education, 40, 99–114. Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 118–125. Partlow, K. M., & Gibbs, W. J. (2003). Indicators of constructivist principles in Internet-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(2), 68–97. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco7 Josey- Bass. Phipps, R. A., & Merisotis, J. P. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet based distance education. Phipps, R. A., Wellman, J. V., & Merisotis, J. P. (1998). Assuring quality in distance learning: A preliminary review. Washington, DC7 Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 41–50. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In Bradual H. Kahn (Ed.), Internet-based instruction (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Educational Technology Publications. Relan, A., & Gillani, B. B. (1997). Internet-based instruction and the traditional classroom: Similarities and differences. In Bradual H. Kahn (Ed.), Internet-based instruction (pp. 41– 46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Educational Technology Publications. Rosenthal, R. (1966) Experimenter Effects in Behavioural Research .N.Y. Appleton-Century Crofts. Saunders, M, Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for Business Students (4th edition) Harlow: Prentice Hall. Silverman, D. (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods forAnalysing Talk, Text and Interaction.London: Sage. Schunk, D. (1983). Developing children’s self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 76–86. SPSS (2003). SPSS 11.0 for windows student version. Chicago, IL7 Author. Svinicki, M. D. (1999). New directions in learning and motivation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 5–27. Torrington, D. ( 1991 ) management Face to Face. London: Prentice Hall King(Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centeredtechnologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25–50). Mahwah, NJ7 Erlbaum. Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. J., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305–346). Hillsdale, NJ7 Erlbaum. Young, S., & Shaw, D. A. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 70(6),670–686. APPENDIX APPENDIX I SECTION TWO QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Do you do your own personal studies? [ ] Yes [ ]No If yes, how many hours do u take doing your own personal study? Where do you do your studies? [ ] Library [ ] Hostel 2. Do you have close contact with your lecturer? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, how is the contact beneficial to you? If no, what are your reasons for staying away? 3. How long do you think it should take before you get your feedback? [ ] 1 week [ ] 2 weeks [ ] 3 weeks 4. Do you prefer seminar presentations as a method of learning ? [ ] YES [ ] NO If no what are your reasons? 5. Do you have group discussion? [ ] YES [ ] NO In your own opinion, what do u think about group discussions? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6. Do you prefer doing your assignments as an individual or as a group? [ ] YES [ ] NO If no, what are your reasons? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… APPENDIX 2 INTERVIEW 1. In your opinion, what are the impediments to the learning process in your institution? 2 .As a student, what learning techniques do you prefer to be used in your learning process? 3. What improvements do you suggest in the management of the institution that would make learning more efficient and effective? 4. Any comments on group work , do you find it effective? APPENDIX 3 Fig 1. Fig 2 Fig 3 Fig 4 Fig 5 Fig 6 Read More