What do UEL students think about the future of university education - Assignment Example

What do UEL think about the future of education? of East London Research Project Study premise Secondary literature sources provided many different concepts related to the future of education. Initially, there was not enough inter-related theory or research studies that provided a singular concept regarding the future of university education. Because of the many concepts identified through research the study could not develop a workable hypothesis based on initial findings, the study took an inductive approach whereby the literature review was used to model questions for use in the primary study (Price 2011). The aim of the study based on the findings in the initial review of literature was to develop new models or explanations and understandings about the future of education through the lens of university students; an exploratory research approach. Initial research studies identified many different arguments about the future of education, including structural changes to the classroom, distance learning through e-systems, increasing tuition costs and even more interactive tools and instruments based on changing curriculum in-line with business evolution. The most common theme identified was the presence of e-learning as a foundation for the future of university education. Because of the enormous volume of literature on the subject, e-learning became the focus of this primary study. Literature review E-learning is the use of various electronic applications and systems to promote educational learning. These include “web-based learning, computer-based learning, virtual classroom development and digital collaborations” all delivered through Internet, satellite television, CD-ROM and intranet systems (Manochehr 2004: 10). According to a recent report published by the Sloan Foundation, e-learning systems have achieved a 12-14 percent growth rate since 2006 (Mihai, Sanciu and Aleca 2011). In the United States alone, as one example, there are currently 3.5 million students using online education systems within higher education environments (Mihai, et al.). It is forecasted that e-learning will, by 2014, be in 81 percent of global universities (Mihai, et al.). Another recent study with a sample population of 289 respondents, 189 of which were from higher education environments and 100 from corporations, identified current usage of electronic learning. In the study, 44 percent of respondents used blogs to teach, 53 percent video podcasts, 71 percent online courses, 56 percent social networks, 66 percent text messaging and 49 percent mobile broadband (The Economist 2008). What significantly supports the notion that e-learning could represent the future of university education is that this study consisted of respondents from Europe, The United States, Asia and other international countries (The Economist). There is significant growth in usership of e-learning systems both in universities and the business environment. According to Clark (1999) students who use distance learning via the Internet have similar performance levels to that of students taught in the physical university environment. The researcher conducted a study of student performances from 1928 to 1999 after cataloguing 355 different research reports during this 69 year period and discovered equal achievement with both types of learning (Clark). High achievement in distance learning via the Internet continues to make this teaching system an incentive for universities around the globe. Further, there is also significant growth rate in the use of social networking and video sharing sites on the Internet. According to the Copyright Clearance Center (2009), there were 12.7 billion Internet users that viewed videos in 2008, an increase of 34 percent from 2007. Video sites allow the instructor to post their lectures online at a low cost, thus providing education for users not only in Europe but around the globe. Sanborn, Santos, Montgomery, Caruthers and James (2005) project that the future of university education will consist of what is referred to as Direct Education, a visor or implant that allows educational information to be transmitted directly to the student consciousness. In this system, “learning is just a thought away” (Sanborn, et al.: 27). Collins (2008) offers a similar project, describing the futuristic metaverse, an interactive 3D virtual environment that can be accessed anywhere across the globe with access to a simple electronic terminal. Changing technology, especially 3D systems, continue to evolve the platform for delivering educational information. The notion of evolving technology is supported also by Rudd, Davia and Sullivan (2009) who offer that computing power is rapidly dissolving between functionality of personal computers and the mobile device (i.e. the smart phone). More sophisticated mobile devices have growing bandwidth capabilities and memory capacity, thus providing students with the flexibility to be provided with mobile education accessible anywhere and anytime. eBooks such as Amazon’s Kindle device also have better screen resolution today and improved readability that is replacing demand for printed textbook materials (Rudd, et al.). From a physical perspective, evolution of technology continues to predict that education will take radically different forms and become more mobile in the process to add convenience to university students. There are, however, drawbacks to using e-learning according to some theorists. In order to become fully engaged in e-learning, a student must be extrinsically motivated. Defined, this means that they require praise, encouragement and various rewards that are provided by the instructor or peers in order to perform well in e-learning (Wu and Hwang 2010). Typically, this is provided in the physical classroom environment and is something not largely present in e-learning systems. According to Abraham Maslow, all humans have a need for affiliation that must be satisfied to become healthy, well-adjusted adults (Villa 2000). E-learning tends to limit affiliation by removing peer social networks that are common at the physical university. Furthermore, some cultures are highly collectivist, meaning they value group belonging and strong social and family ties (Donnison 2008). For those hailing from collectivist nations, e-learning might represent a type of individuality that is not a preferred learning system or environment. However, despite these potential drawbacks related to socialisation, there are systems that provide better collaboration between student and instructor. Barber and Mourshed (2009) identify such collaboration networks online referred to as Lediton.se in Sweden and Victoria’s ultranet. These are interactive platforms that provide the ability to share resources between teachers and students, such as video-sharing, to improve the perception of group affiliation. One university launched a curriculum known as Frequency 1550, which provides distance learners with GPS-equipped mobile phones in which they were instructed to roam their local cities and download pictures and make notations on city history. This information is then sourced through an e-learning system that allows for collaboration between all distanced teams so that they can collectively contemplate together in the online environment (Hooft 2008). With evolving technology, it seems that students can still maintain their basic motivational needs for group affiliation and social belonging. Finally, the Global Foundation for Management Education (2008) provides statistics from a study of 13 different higher education institutions across the world showing that nearly all institutions in the study were developing or already maintained e-learning systems. By nearly every viewpoint, e-learning is becoming a model that is considered viable and trustworthy by today’s universities both in Europe and abroad. E-learning seems to represent the future of university education regardless of the system that delivers it. Study methodology Since there was such an overwhelming volume of perspectives about future university education including e-learning, the study aimed to explore this concept further and attempt to link e-learning with student emotions. Because the literature review identified that some students could be negatively affected by issues of social isolation and the nature of extrinsic motivation as an incentive for learning, the study methodology was to link psychology with electronic learning. The study required quantitative data regarding student perceptions related to the future of university education as it pertains to technology. Henslin (2005) suggests that survey research is the best method of achieving statistical data under the quantitative approach. Since the student maintained limitations regarding the sample group, coding through SPSS was not necessary, rather it was determined that an average be calculated (mean analysis) based on student sentiment. For recruitment purposes, the study chose a randomized sample which consisted of 21 student responses. The randomized sample was selected to ensure that the study would gain perspectives from diverse student groups, based on the literature describing collectivism versus individualism. Since UEL maintains many students from varying socio-cultural backgrounds, it became an objective to determine whether specific demographics felt more or less favourable about the potential social exclusion associated with electronic learning systems. The study also involved a series of interviews with five students who were recruited from the survey sample. Henslin (2005) identifies that some respondents will give socially-acceptable answers rather than their true opinions in an effort to shade their answers according to what they think the researcher might want to hear. To avoid this and improve validity, the interview utilised closed-ended questions to avoid irrelevant or biases responses. Observational research was rejected as a potential research methodology since it would be impossible to view psychological responses and attitudes with real distance learning; a limitation of the study. Questionnaires also tend to provide opportunities for biased responses, thus surveys with a ranking scale and closed-ended interviews were determined to best serve this research project. Results Twenty of the 21 students recruited for the survey indicated an above-average (greater than 5 on the ranking scale) belief that e-learning would be the future of university education. The student who believed that e-learning would not be part of tomorrow’s learning systems was recruited for the interview in an attempt to uncover their rationale for scoring only (2) on the ranking scale, who happened to be an Asian student. The interview revealed socialisation-related misgivings about the quality of e-learning from this particular respondent. Questions on the survey dealt with emotional responses to e-learning systems and perceptions of the importance of interactivity with peers and instructors for affiliation reasons. The researcher identified a distinct correlation with certain respondents who hailed from Asian backgrounds. Of the 21 recruited, six were international students. Five of the six Asian participants found significantly less value in e-learning systems as compared to domestic students (results in Appendix B). Further, the interview questions involving psychological/emotional responses to e-learning indicated that two Asian students (the entire Asian interview sample) believed that e-learning takes away from the quality of relationships that are typically found in university classrooms. The other three students involved in the interview process who hailed from the UK indicated no problems with extrinsic-based motivations as it is attributed to e-learning systems. As a collective whole, the entire survey sample scored an average ranking of 6.2 (slightly above average) associated with the ability of e-learning to provide extrinsic motivations to achieve high performance learning using these systems. The interview focused on questions about video-sharing and collaboration tools and the samples’ attitudes about its viability and likelihood for future university studies. It was revealed that most believed these tools could provide adequate social ability and the type of extrinsic rewards common in the traditional university classroom today. Conclusion The students supported the literature review which indicated e-learning as the most likely and viable method of future university learning delivery. As it pertained to socialisation, the only connection with diminished affiliation needs fulfilment stemmed from the Asian population, suggesting this might only be a concern with students who hail from more collectivist nations that value strong social ties and group belonging. The survey and the interview revealed little concern over affiliation from domestic students. The results indicate that students believe that technological evolution would contribute to growth in e-learning systems. Emotional responses serve as a projection of what students might feel as tomorrow’s university students when exposed to the likely evolution of electronic learning in future university classrooms. This study serves as a potential framework for future research studies on collectivist versus individualistic nations with real-life distance or other e-learning students. The only notable result that showed direct connection with attitudes about the integrity and quality of tomorrow’s e-learning systems was that of the Asian population. References Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2009) Shaping the future: how good education systems can become great in the decade ahead, McKinsey Education, 19. Clark, D. (1999) Getting results with distance education, American Journal of Distance Education 12(1), 38-51. [online] Available at www.emeraldjournals.com [accessed 30 November 2011] Collins, C. (2008) Looking to the future: higher education in the metaverse [online] Available at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0853.pdf [accessed 1 Dec 2011] Copyright Clearance Center. (2009) Video use and higher education: options for the future, 4. [online] Available at: http://library.nyu.edu/about/video_use_in_higher_education.pdf [accessed 29 November 2011] Donnison, P. (2008) Executive coaching across cultural boundaries: an interesting challenge facing coaches today, Development and Learning in Organizations 22(4), 17. GFME. (2008) The global management education landscape – shaping the future of business schools, Global Foundation for Management Education [online] Available at http://www.gfme.org/landscape/reportonlineversion.pdf [accessed 30 November 2011] Henslin, J.A. (2005) Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach, 7th ed. A&B Publishing. Hooft, M. (2008) Learning and leading with technology, International Society for Technology in Education, 3 [online] Available at: http://www.rcet.org/research/publications/L&L_learningwhilemobile_2008.pdf [accessed 30 November 2011] Manochehr, N. (2006) The influence of learning styles on learnings in e-learning environments: an empirical study, Qatar University [online] Available at: http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/cheer/ch18/manochehr.pdf [accessed 1 December 2011] Mihai, F., Stanciu, A. and Aleca, O. (2011) Changing learning environment through technology, Annales Universitatis Apulensis 13(1), 48-56. Price, G. (2011) Deductive and inductive approaches, University of East London, Lecture notes. Rudd, J., Davia, C. and Sullivan, P. (2009) Education for a smarter plant: the future of learning, IBM Corporation [online] Available at http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp4564.pdf [accessed 30 November 2011] Sanborn, R., Santos, A., Montgomery, A., and Caruthers, J. (2005) Four scenarios for the future of education, The Futurist 39(1), 26-30. The Economist. (2008) The future of higher education: how technology will shape e-learning, Economist Intelligence Unit [online] Available at: http://www.nmc.org/pdf/future-of-higher-ed-(NMC).pdf [accessed 30 November 2011] Villa, R. (2000) The future of education, International Education Summit for a Democratic Society, 4-5. Wu, W. and Hwang, L. (2010) The effectiveness of e-learning for blended courses in colleges: a multi-level empirical study, International Journal of Electronic Business Management 8(4), 312-322. APPENDIX A: SURVEY AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Survey A. Please indicate the degree to which you believe e-learning will be included in the university education of tomorrow. B. Please indicate the degree to which you believe e-learning provides the ability to socialize during the learning process. C. To what degree do you feel that e-learning systems can provide instructor reward, praise and/or motivation during the learning process. D. To what level is such praise and motivation important to you in the learning process? E. How important is socialisation with peers in the learning process? F. To what extent do you believe that technology will evolve social systems in the e-learning process? Interview A. What is your ethnicity and cultural background? B. Have you ever been involved with e-learning systems before? C. Do you believe that e-learning can provide socialisation effectively? How or why? D. Do you believe that e-learning provides the motivation typically found in university classrooms today? Why? E. Do you find yourself motivated by instructor feedback and praise? Why? F. Do you think that the university education of tomorrow and e-learning will be able to provide students with a sense of social belonging? Why? G. If UEL offered more e-learning systems, would you prefer traditional classrooms or accept the e-learning processes readily? Why? APPENDIX B: GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF RESULTS Read More