Outcomes from the Digital Student Skills project

1. Outcomes from the Digital Student Skills project Nick Jeans, Sero Consultant and Ellen Lessner 23 June 2016 #digitalstudent http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org

2. Jisc digital student projects »Phase 1 study reviewed students’ expectations and experiences of the digital environment at university (2013-2014) »This included a review of practice in schools to identify likely incoming expectations (2014) »In phase 2 the focus was on FE learners (2014-2015) »In phase 3 we have been speaking to learners from ACL,WBL, apprenticeships and offender learners (2015- May 2016) »Phase 4 Online learners study, review of practice and speaking to students studying on online or partly online courses (2016 -) http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk

3. Skills sector digital student project » Scope of the ‘Skills sector’ project covers: adult & community learners, work-based learners, apprentices, offender learners » What do learners WANT (expectations) in relation to the digital? » What do learners NEED to succeed (experiences)? » Literature review| stakeholder interviews | learner focus groups | consultation events » Guidance for providers on how to gather learners’ views, how to engage learners in an ongoing dialogue about the digital and how to better support learners digital experience » Identify top challenges in relation to the digital learner experience and identify what support providers need in addressing these challenges 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk

4. Work-based learners - issues 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk

5. Work-based learners - issues »Problems: access to good laptops, printers and internet connectivity »Students want experience with software + hardware that’s used in their work places » VLEs are NOT redundant - maybe yet to reach their potential »Students’ technology skills vary widely – even amongst same age groups.We can’t take skill levels for granted »Lack of student voice in the sector »Students can feel isolated in work placements, so appreciate online forum to link with peers and tutors 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk

6. Adult and community learning - issues 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk

7. Adult and community learning - issues »Lack of good equipment + wifi »Difficult transporting equipment to venues, blocks on websites at schools, not getting passwords from venue »Teachers lack training in how to use technologies + no time to prepare materials / backups »Shortage of tutors »No uniform skill levels (applies to all sectors) »No enthusiasm for MOOCs »Learners value face-to-face interaction in class, use of technology during intervening week to maintain skills learnt »Little student voice in the literature. 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk

8. Prison learning – significant issues 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk

9. Prison learning – significant issues »Restricted access to devices, internet, information and support (security above rehabilitation) »Limited access even to existing technologies due to competing priorities / philosophies »Access to meaningful learning opportunities often decreases as students near release »No continuity of learning support between prisons or after release. Prisoners released without skills for employment »Need for dedicated technology-enabled learning space and supervised Skype to improve family contact »Virtual Campus has potential but limitations of access, support and quality content27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk

10. Overall conclusions » Clear need to assess and cater for different digital literacies across the sector » More tutor training needed on use of assistive technology to support range of learners and to embrace learners’ own skills » Need to focus on infrastructure and access above more “charismatic” technologies » Jisc pages on Developing Digital Literacies with resources and links is first point-of-call: https://www.Jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-digital-literacies) together with Building digital capability service: https://digitalcapability.jiscinvolve.org/wp/ 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk

11. Activity 1.How do you gather your learners’ views of technology? Write down your answers on Text Wall. 14/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk 11

12. Focus groups » Reached 123 learners » Groups cover good geographical spread » Learners from a range of skills sectors and study levels: apprenticeships, adult and community learning and prison learning » Dropouts (of providers and learners) has been challenging » Amazon vouchers resolved this issue! We conducted 12 focus groups: 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk 12

13. Focus group process » Learner profile » Focus group process » Card sort Tools 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk 13

14. The basics: Recording the results »Card sort process »Technology »Room arrangement »Permissions (organisations and individuals) 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk 14

15. Experiencing the card sort »Take the cards out of the envelope and lay them on the table so that all are visible »Put the ‘theme heading’ at the top and after a group discussion, put the remaining cards in order of importance underneath the theme card »If you want to add something to the existing cards, use the blank card(s) »If you don’t understand a card or consider it unimportant, put it back in the envelope »Timed exercise keeps everyone on task 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk 15

16. Reflections »How was that for you? »How might you use this? 27/04/2016 Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk 16

17. Find out more… Jisc Digital Student http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org.uk Digital Student Skills Study #digitalstudent Giles Pepler Giles.Pepler@sero.co.uk Nick Jeans Nick.jeans@sero.co.uk http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 17

18. Possible Visuals for first slides (from the Noun Project)

Editor's Notes

No need to read out all of this! An initial study reviewed existing evidence about students' expectations and experiences of study in a digital environment. This includes both: digital environment generally e.g. wifi, IT support, access to devices and printers the study environment in its digital aspects e.g. how digital resources and media are used; what software students access, how they use their own devices and services to support learning The study also looked at how universities collect, manage and analyse such information locally, and how they engage students in a productive dialogue about their digital experience.
There are deep-seated and persistent problems with regards to students accessing the quality of devices and internet connectivity that they require and expect. Their expectations of the technical-infrastructure are not excessive and chiefly involve the ability to use machines running standard Office and Word type packages (or similar) over a domestic equivalent-standard internet connection. That access to a decent quality laptop, or the facility to use their own, high speed, reliable wifi and printers is consistently the top-rated student priority suggests that policy makers at all levels may be wise to focus on these rather prosaic goals above more “charismatic” technologies. Learners expected the same or better services that they had had in school. Given that spending at school level – whilst also under severe pressure – is relatively protected there has to be a risk that students become disillusioned when they experience a notable decrease in the quality and availability of the technology. On another level, students working in industries which make use of specialist packages expect their providers to furnish them with those packages – and machines of sufficient power to run them. Generally, students expect their colleges to provide the experience of the hardware and software, and opportunity to develop the skills, which will prepare them for work and enhance their employment opportunities. VLEs and LMSs are far from redundant technologies. It may even be that they are yet to approach reaching their potential. Students’ technology skills are far from homogeneous – even amongst age groups. Do not take skill levels for granted. Students’ skills with “learning technologies” further complicate this. The digital immigrants versus digital natives typology is not particularly helpful. There is a lack of student voice (with some honourable exceptions) in the research. This leads one to ask whether there may be a lack of student voice in the sector. By comparison with the HE sector and the compulsory education sector (or perhaps age group? NOTE TO SELF) there is little research focusing on learning with technologies. There does not seem any desire amongst students for anything resembling MOOCs. In fact, some college (skills) students were clear that they did not want any “external” engagement other than that which involved their places of employment. That is not to say there is no potential. Persistent problems with access to the quality of devices and internet connectivity that learners require and expect.: access to a decent quality laptop, or the facility to use their own, high speed, reliable wifi and printers are consistently the top-rated student priority suggests. Generally, students expect their training providers to prepare them to use the technology they will find in their work places Students working in industries which make use of specialist packages expect their providers to furnish them with those packages – and machines of sufficient power to run them. VLEs and LMSs are far from redundant technologies. It may even be that they are yet to approach reaching their potential. Students’ technology skills are far from homogeneous – even amongst age groups. Do not take skill levels for granted. Students’ skills with “learning technologies” further complicate this. The digital immigrants versus digital natives typology is not particularly helpful. There is a lack of student voice (with some honourable exceptions) in the research. This leads one to ask whether there may be a lack of student voice in the sector.
There are deep-seated and persistent problems with regards to students accessing the quality of devices and internet connectivity that they require and expect. Their expectations of the technical-infrastructure are not excessive and chiefly involve the ability to use machines running standard Office and Word type packages (or similar) over a domestic equivalent-standard internet connection. That access to a decent quality laptop, or the facility to use their own, high speed, reliable wifi and printers is consistently the top-rated student priority suggests that policy makers at all levels may be wise to focus on these rather prosaic goals above more “charismatic” technologies. Learners expected the same or better services that they had had in school. Given that spending at school level – whilst also under severe pressure – is relatively protected there has to be a risk that students become disillusioned when they experience a notable decrease in the quality and availability of the technology. On another level, students working in industries which make use of specialist packages expect their providers to furnish them with those packages – and machines of sufficient power to run them. Generally, students expect their colleges to provide the experience of the hardware and software, and opportunity to develop the skills, which will prepare them for work and enhance their employment opportunities. VLEs and LMSs are far from redundant technologies. It may even be that they are yet to approach reaching their potential. Students’ technology skills are far from homogeneous – even amongst age groups. Do not take skill levels for granted. Students’ skills with “learning technologies” further complicate this. The digital immigrants versus digital natives typology is not particularly helpful. There is a lack of student voice (with some honourable exceptions) in the research. This leads one to ask whether there may be a lack of student voice in the sector. By comparison with the HE sector and the compulsory education sector (or perhaps age group? NOTE TO SELF) there is little research focusing on learning with technologies. There does not seem any desire amongst students for anything resembling MOOCs. In fact, some college (skills) students were clear that they did not want any “external” engagement other than that which involved their places of employment. That is not to say there is no potential. Persistent problems with access to the quality of devices and internet connectivity that learners require and expect.: access to a decent quality laptop, or the facility to use their own, high speed, reliable wifi and printers are consistently the top-rated student priority suggests. Generally, students expect their training providers to prepare them to use the technology they will find in their work places Students working in industries which make use of specialist packages expect their providers to furnish them with those packages – and machines of sufficient power to run them. VLEs and LMSs are far from redundant technologies. It may even be that they are yet to approach reaching their potential. Students’ technology skills are far from homogeneous – even amongst age groups. Do not take skill levels for granted. Students’ skills with “learning technologies” further complicate this. The digital immigrants versus digital natives typology is not particularly helpful. There is a lack of student voice (with some honourable exceptions) in the research. This leads one to ask whether there may be a lack of student voice in the sector.
Again, the existential issue is the lack of good quality equipment and unreliable and/or limited wifi - but with the added challenges of transporting equipment to venues, blocks on sites when using school venues, not being provided with passwords by the venue. Not surprisingly, the practitioners faced their own barriers in terms of obtaining training in how to use technologies and insufficient time to prepare materials or backups and these will have impacted on the learner experience. There is also a lack of tutors. Do not take skill levels for granted. On the other hand, do not assume the worst. Again, there seems to be little enthusiasm for MOOCs in their current guise amongst learners in the Community and Adult Learning Sector. There is obviously some potential but the need to identify correctly and address the skills of the learners against the skills require may be too onerous at the present. Given the high dropout rates for MOOCs and the impact that perceived “failure” has on non-Higher Education adult learners serious consideration must be take place before deploying a technology and pedagogy which could potentially do more harm than good. Again we found little student voice in the literature – once again with honourable exceptions. Again, this raises the possibility that student voice is little heard in the sector. It may, of course, be that the research was not easily identifiable. But, given the heterogeneous nature of the learning constituency, even if student voices were collated, it may be nearly impossible to act on it. Lack of good quality equipment and unreliable and/or limited wifi - but with the added challenges of transporting equipment to venues, blocks on sites when using school venues, not being provided with passwords by the venue. Practitioners faced their own barriers in terms of obtaining training in how to use technologies and insufficient time to prepare materials or backups and these will have impacted on the learner experience. There is also a lack of tutors. Do not take skill levels for granted. On the other hand, do not assume the worst. There seems to be little enthusiasm for MOOCs in their current guise amongst learners in the ACL sector. Little student voice in the literature – once again with honourable exceptions. Again, this raises the possibility that student voice is little heard in the sector. It may, of course, be that the research was not easily identifiable. But, given the heterogeneous nature of the learning constituency, even if student voices were collated, it may be nearly impossible to act on it.
Again, the existential issue is the lack of good quality equipment and unreliable and/or limited wifi - but with the added challenges of transporting equipment to venues, blocks on sites when using school venues, not being provided with passwords by the venue. Not surprisingly, the practitioners faced their own barriers in terms of obtaining training in how to use technologies and insufficient time to prepare materials or backups and these will have impacted on the learner experience. There is also a lack of tutors. Do not take skill levels for granted. On the other hand, do not assume the worst. Again, there seems to be little enthusiasm for MOOCs in their current guise amongst learners in the Community and Adult Learning Sector. There is obviously some potential but the need to identify correctly and address the skills of the learners against the skills require may be too onerous at the present. Given the high dropout rates for MOOCs and the impact that perceived “failure” has on non-Higher Education adult learners serious consideration must be take place before deploying a technology and pedagogy which could potentially do more harm than good. Again we found little student voice in the literature – once again with honourable exceptions. Again, this raises the possibility that student voice is little heard in the sector. It may, of course, be that the research was not easily identifiable. But, given the heterogeneous nature of the learning constituency, even if student voices were collated, it may be nearly impossible to act on it. Lack of good quality equipment and unreliable and/or limited wifi - but with the added challenges of transporting equipment to venues, blocks on sites when using school venues, not being provided with passwords by the venue. Practitioners faced their own barriers in terms of obtaining training in how to use technologies and insufficient time to prepare materials or backups and these will have impacted on the learner experience. There is also a lack of tutors. Do not take skill levels for granted. On the other hand, do not assume the worst. There seems to be little enthusiasm for MOOCs in their current guise amongst learners in the ACL sector. Little student voice in the literature – once again with honourable exceptions. Again, this raises the possibility that student voice is little heard in the sector. It may, of course, be that the research was not easily identifiable. But, given the heterogeneous nature of the learning constituency, even if student voices were collated, it may be nearly impossible to act on it.
Access to devices, access to the internet, access to information and access to support are all priorities for incarcerated learners. At times, this is further complicated by students being denied access to existing technologies due to competing priorities and/or philosophies. Access to meaningful learning opportunities often decreases as incarcerated students progress through the prison system towards release. This is further aggravated by the lack of continuity of learning, support and access post-incarceration. Amongst the key student requests is for a dedicated technology-enabled learning space within prisons. Despite persistent problems, in terms of access, support and quality of content, the Virtual Campus is still viewed by incarcerated learners as having considerable potential. Perceptions of a lack of tangible progress may ultimately erode this enthusiasm. Do not take students’ digital skills levels for granted. In addition, do not assume the worst. There is more student voice evident in the literature for this sector (particularly for the incarcerated learners). But there is little evidence of student-voice actually influencing anything on a substantial scale. Champion and Edgar (Champion & Edgar 2013) are reasonably positive about the potential for MOOCs as a supplement to the prison learning toolkit. Of course, there are possible explanations for what might at first seem counter-intuitive: not least that whilst the vast majority of prisoners have below average qualifications there are prisoners of all ability levels and some are already graduates and/or post-graduates. “Eynon and Helsper (2011) identified the relationship between digital exclusion and digital choice as important in students’ use of new technologies for learning. There is, however, a fundamental assumption in their discussion that people should have empowered and informed choices in how they access or use technology for learning, which is not necessarily the case in a prison context.” (Pike 2015) “The best practice was observed where a prison had a learning ethos which was shared by the staff, where higher-level learners were given dedicated space and time for learning and where learners were encouraged to take responsible peer-support positions which raised self-esteem and helped to develop a community.” (Pike 2015)
Access to devices, access to the internet, access to information and access to support are all priorities for incarcerated learners. At times, this is further complicated by students being denied access to existing technologies due to competing priorities and/or philosophies. Access to meaningful learning opportunities often decreases as incarcerated students progress through the prison system towards release. This is further aggravated by the lack of continuity of learning, support and access post-incarceration. Amongst the key student requests is for a dedicated technology-enabled learning space within prisons. Despite persistent problems, in terms of access, support and quality of content, the Virtual Campus is still viewed by incarcerated learners as having considerable potential. Perceptions of a lack of tangible progress may ultimately erode this enthusiasm. Do not take students’ digital skills levels for granted. In addition, do not assume the worst. There is more student voice evident in the literature for this sector (particularly for the incarcerated learners). But there is little evidence of student-voice actually influencing anything on a substantial scale. Champion and Edgar (Champion & Edgar 2013) are reasonably positive about the potential for MOOCs as a supplement to the prison learning toolkit. Of course, there are possible explanations for what might at first seem counter-intuitive: not least that whilst the vast majority of prisoners have below average qualifications there are prisoners of all ability levels and some are already graduates and/or post-graduates. “Eynon and Helsper (2011) identified the relationship between digital exclusion and digital choice as important in students’ use of new technologies for learning. There is, however, a fundamental assumption in their discussion that people should have empowered and informed choices in how they access or use technology for learning, which is not necessarily the case in a prison context.” (Pike 2015) “The best practice was observed where a prison had a learning ethos which was shared by the staff, where higher-level learners were given dedicated space and time for learning and where learners were encouraged to take responsible peer-support positions which raised self-esteem and helped to develop a community.” (Pike 2015)
Discuss in pairs
Training provider groups completed at InTouch Care (Sheffield), Lifetime Careers (Bristol) and Realise Futures (Lowestoft). Another in the process of being arranged ACL groups completed at Stoke-on-Trent, Leicester, Derby and Carmarthen FE Apprentice group completed at LESOCO; another arranged for Somerset College Offender learning group arranged at Shotts Prison (Scotland) and Channings Wood (Devon)
Chance to see learner profile later. (check if LP and FG process have been included in folder) Nick to add thoughts on what we learnt – Difficulties with contacting and enlisting organisations and students. Learners are not in one place for a long time like FE and HE so not a ‘captive’ group.
Consent form, permissions from organisations, especially prisons Hand over to EL
Timing Participating in the discussion is important to this exercise Listening to the students’ (or staff if used in staff training) discussion will give you a lot of information. Recording comments isn’t easy but it may be valuable. Taking notes at the time works as well. If you would like to look at the cards from another theme, just ask but please put first theme cards back in the envelope.
Cards prompt students and providers to think about things they haven’t used yet. Or to solve problems – someone who didn’t know how to use Google docs to share/Provider considered using Skype
Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide (click ‘Apply’ to change only the currently selected slide, or ‘Apply to All’ to change the footers on all slides).

Outcomes from the Digital Student Skills project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Outcomes from the Digital Student Skills project

Similar to Outcomes from the Digital Student Skills project (20)

More from Jisc

More from Jisc (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Outcomes from the Digital Student Skills project

Editor's Notes