Critique
The article titled: “Nursing and healthcare students’ experiences and use of e-learning in higher education” is critiqued using the structural framework and guideline suggested by Rebecca (Becky) Ingham in the paper titled, “A nurse’s guide to the critical reading of research”. Reading and critically analyzing research papers will help in improving and validating once knowledge on the topic. (Moule, Ward, and Lockyer, 2010; Broomfield, 2016)
The title of the paper is simple and comprehensive. It suggests that the paper is on e-learning experience of students of in higher educational institutes (HEI). The topic can attract readers who are curious to know the experience of the students with eLearning. The paper is authored by specialists in the field. The first authors Pam Moule is a Reader in Nursing and Learning Technologies. The second author Ros Ward is a Senior lecturer and the last author Lesley Lockyer is the Director of Market Intelligence. All the authors belong to the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of West England. From the different expertise of the authors, the reader can expect richness and varied perspective in this research. (Moule, Ward and Lockyer, 2010)
The research paper was published in 2007 and thus it is doubtful as to whether the information pertaining to this article would be relevant to students in 2016. The paper is developed based on information available before the date of publication. The technology related to eLearning has developed over the years, and it is likely that students experience has also changed over the years. There are a number of articles published on eLearning in the year 2016, but this paper remains unique in that it is the only work that looks into students doing higher education in nursing.
The article is published in a prominent peer reviewed journal in the field. Journal of advanced nursing is published by Wiley’s and the members of its editorial panel are eminent scientist and researchers in the field of nursing. (Moule, Ward and Lockyer, 2010)
Abstract: An abstract is provided in the paper. It provides a quick understanding of the work. The main aim of the paper is outlined in the abstract. The aim as suggested by the title of the paper, is to present the research on student’s experience, on the use of eLearning in higher education. It also provides a brief description of the background on which the work was based. The need for eLearning and the advancement in technology has encouraged the use of the same in HIT. The lack of evidences to access the advantage of this new change in education, has prompted the authors to research on this topic. A brief idea of methodology is provided in the abstract. The abstract suggests that the authors have used a qualitative method employing questionnaire. The study involved up to 25 institutions of higher studies. Both students and staff participated in the study. A more elaborated description of the research is provided in the main paper. The findings and conclusion of the paper are also briefed in the abstract. It attracts interest in the paper and also suggest the perspective of the research.
Introduction: Information available from government and private databases is provided in the introduction. E-learning trends are not new to education and it has already influenced many educational sectors in U.K (Dearing, 1997; Pittinsky, 2002). Research suggests that e-learning can improve teaching, learning and assessment (HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland, 2005). It is expected to support and facilitate development in the profession (Bates, 2001). It can introduce flexibility into the educational system (Adams, 2004).
The paper has also defined different terms used in the paper. ‘E-learning’ in this paper is defined as any technology that uses information and communication technologies. The introduction presented by the authors suggests that e-Learning technologies can support nursing pedagogy. In spite of the popular opinion on the benefits of eLearning in nursing education, there has been hardly any systematic study to identify the reality behind this claim. This has been identified as the cause for initiating the study. The introduction also suggests that the authors have used data from other studies conducted by the Higher Education Academy, Health Science and Practice Subject Centre (HEA HS&P) (Cox, and Holleman, 2006). The learning opportunities of institutes and students who use HEI technology were explored in the study.
The introduction begins by explaining the initial studies that triggers the idea in the study. There is no clear hypothesis suggested in the introduction. This could be because, the study is a preliminary qualitative study that is conducted to get a first handed opinion on the topic. The exact problem faced by students in e-Learning is not highlighted in the introduction. However, the authors have stated that there is a lack of research and information on this aspect. Similarly, the introduction fails to provide specific aim and objective. It only serves to provide a preliminary picture on which the study is based. There is also ambiguity on what experience the research intends to study.
Background: Learning in conventional education has always involved an instructor who teaches the student. This system is largely teacher centered and it was difficult for the students to exist independent of the teacher. Students remained a passive recipient in this system. On the contrary technology based education has been largely student centered. In this system, the students can access knowledge and draw inferences, independent of the teachers. It provides students an opportunity to contribute to knowledge. e-Learning instructions are provided to students, to support the constructive approach in the learning process. e-learning also employs social networking and social learning. Figure 1 in the paper is a e-Learning ladder adapted from Moule, 2007. It is useful in understanding the different e-learning technologies that are considered in the study. The figure suggests that the new system requires technical assistance, IT skills and ICT access to the site. In addition to these, many other factors can decide their use among students. The figure helps to understand these factors and the process of e-Learning. These factors can also limit the use of technology. Earlier studies have identified denied access, as the major limitation of technology (Morgan, Rawlinson and Weaver, 2006). Computer literacy is necessary for using technology. This is one issue that affect the adoption of technology at an international level (Wharrad, Cook and Poussa, 2005). In spite of these disadvantages, e-learning can provide a self-directed learning experience. Students can use it at their convenience and this can introduce flexibility to the system.
Though technology is used widely in nursing and social services, it serves mainly as a repository of information. There have been only a few introductions to online interaction between students and staffs. Most of the time, technology is used to create content and deliver material. The benefit of learning in a conventional way provides students to interact and ask doubts. These technologies are deficient in the benefits provided by conventional learning (Britain and Liber, 2007). The authors, through background studies, have identified Web 2.0 technology as the ideal one for higher education (Kamelboulos, Hetherington and Wheeler, 2007). The technology can accommodate social networking, podcasts, wikis and weblogs. This technology also allows studies to use it as a platform to create new data. Sections of lectures can be broadcasted through Podcast. In addition to Web 2.0 technologies, other technologies like 3-D virtual worlds, allows advanced social networking among residents in healthcare. ("Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful Web tools for classrooms", 2006)
The background literature, helps the reader to understand the range of technologies that is available for use in higher education. The literature review is selectively done to support the significance of the study. It would have been useful to the reader, if the authors have suggested the extent to which technology is used in nursing education. In addition, many references in the background are from reports and website articles. As these are not original research articles, it is possible that articles have used the information to suit their context. Once again, the lack of primary source may justify the use of secondary resources. The information on the use of technologies in nursing education, was also based on secondary sources and this can affect the credibility of the background. Being a new innovation, it is likely that there were not many literatures published during the time on this topic. The authors provided certain information on what is known about e-learning, but did not provide a literature support to identify the gap in existing knowledge pertaining to the student’s experience. Nevertheless, the background discussion has been rather broad and will help the reader gain a wider understanding on the field.
The research has not discussed their critical thinking nor their methodology in the review. In fact, the paper does not have a section titled “methods”. Instead methodology is discussed under the subheading titled “Study”. The major variable in the study are not defined in the introduction and a superficiality is noted in the aim and scope of the study. The suitability of the method and study design is not mentioned in the introduction. The authors have also not stated, any limitation and shortcomings experienced in doing a background literature review. It is left to the readers to assume.
The aim, and detailed methodology is provided under the head of ‘study’. The aim of the study was to capture the e-learning experience of the students based on student and staff interview. A mixed approach was used in which the design was qualitative from the outlook, but had quantitative data. The study was conducted in two phases over a period of two years. The quantitative questionnaire used in the first phase, helped to select case study sites in the 2 nd phase. It is very confusing that too many methods are employed. However, the researchers have provided why such a multiple approach was needed and their justification seems reasonable. This approach will allow researchers to study multiple students, institutes and staff in real time (Moule and Goodman, 2009). Studying different institutions, students and staffs will provide scope for comparison. Phase 1 questionnaire, helped to identify Institutions providing e-learning experience in higher education.
A total of 93 higher educational institutes participated in this study. The questionnaire was sent to the institutes through email and post. Of these only 25 responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire had 62 questions pertinent to e-learning. The participation rate was too low. It is disappointing that many did not participate, in spite of the fact that the information gained through the research will benefit all. The author could have pursued them to respond. The authors claim that the questionnaire was developed after a detailed literature review. The questionnaire was validated using a pilot study. The details of the question in the questionnaire are not provided.
In the second phase, the researchers visited the institutes that were selected through the first phase and created focus group. Focus groups refer to the site where the phase 2 study was conducted. Forty-one students from different focus groups participated in the study. Table 1, provides details about the participants. The participants in each focus group responded to a number of eLearning questions. The questions were open ended and pertinent to e-Learning like: advantage, difficulty and engagement with e-learning. Thirty-five staffs participated in the study and data was collected using individual interviews.
The study design is approved by the institute ethics committee and details of this is provided in the paper. The consent was implied through the completion and return of the questionnaire. Codes were used while transcribing data and this helped to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. The data analysis was done using SPSS vs13 software. All the variable in the phase 1 study were categorical.
The data obtained in phase 2 research were complex and were analyzed according to the guidelines offered by Yin, Miles, and Huberman (Yin, 1994; Miles and Huberman, 1984). These papers suggest ways to rigorously analyze complex data. The authors suggest that the bias factor was taken care by engaging two different people to analyze the data independently.
The questionnaire was not new to this study and was an adapted version of the questionnaire used by researchers in another study at higher educational institutes (Moule and Goodman, 2009). The researchers have taken precautions to avoid bias by checking internal validity, construct validity and reliability, in line with the method suggested in the published literature (Gomm et al., 2000). The analysis involves a complete description of each case, within set boundaries. The presentation of cases was focused on delivering nursing and health care (Greener, 2011).
The experimenter has very less control over the variable. There is no mention about random sampling in the study, hence it is difficult to identify the condition used to assign samples. Only institutes that had e-learning in higher education was included in the study. The measure for the variables is not known from the methodology and design. It is not known if the information collected is useful to explore the subject. The researchers have not provided clarification on when the data was collected during the case study. No operational definition of the variables was provided; the reader is made to assume.
Both phase 1 and phase 2 of the study, used questionnaires to study experience of students and staff. Qualitative methods lack accuracy and reliability. Further, the sample size is only 41 in case of students and 35 for staffs. It is doubtful, if such a small sample size can provide the necessary significance, for the results to be scientifically meaningful. The total number of students in all the 25 institutes of eLearning is not provided, hence it is not possible to identify if the samples represent the population. It is also not possible to know if the results can be generalized.
Results: The survey help generate information on how students perceived e-learning in healthcare and nursing. In all the 24 institutes that participated in the study, virtual learning was used to supplement the blackboard learning experience. None of the institute was wholly dependent on e-learning. Virtual learning was used to support teaching and learning. E-Learning was used by students and staff to access web based resources and learning material. E-mail was the most popular technology and it was used by 96% of the cases. Online discussion boards and CD Roms was used by another 84%. It was found beneficial to international students and also aids in the maintenance of distance. (Moule, Ward and Lockyer, 2010)
The researchers identified 3 main themes from focus groups: pedagogic use, factors inhibiting use and factor facilitating engagement. The staff views and student’s views on each theme resonated well. For pedagogic use, students used the institutional VLE to access information and knowledge. The authors used dialogues of the students as the findings. Discussion board and face to face interaction was used only by a few students. The authors have used terms like “most student” and “few students”, instead of stating figures, and this makes the paper appear less scientific. The study identified that there was provision for students and tutors to post questions and there was also a provision to obtain answers. However, the authors earlier mentioned that there was variability in the technology use and application, but the extent of this application is not explained in the paper. The interactive voting system was favored by many students. The voting system, had a system of determining the number of students who answered the question right. The authors could have explained this system better. Certain courses like bio-sciences used eLearning employed e-learning to a greater extent. The answers of the students in the form of dialogue are selected by the authors for discussion of the finding. This selection is not based on scientific principles and thus they are likely to be biased. Some students were of the opinion that it was possible to visually follow a skill in virtual learning classrooms, rather than understanding it from the text. Many who enter higher education are naïve to the skills.
Under the theme, “Factors inhibiting use”, the authors identified limited access to computers as a limiting factor. Many students also reported a lack of access to the internet. The lack of computing skills or poor computing skills also inhibited many from using the online sources. Technical difficulties were reported by students. An IT support once per week was beneficial in providing support. Lack of cooperation and commitment from group members created frustration in some case studies. These factors have resulted in a negative e-Learning experience. Some students opined that their colleagues waited for others to post the comment, before they did theirs and this was annoying. The reason for this is not understood.
Facilitating factors: Students valued the speed in which technology was able to deliver information and knowledge. Results of tests can be provided faster, if technology was employed. They also appreciated the flexibility it offered the educational process. Some students also opined that it was impossible to complete a particular course without the aid of internet. Technology contributes to their accomplishment. Marks were allotted to students for engaging with technology. It was also possible for student to revisit the site and revise the lessons they have learned. Students with e-learning difficulties can always use the benefit offered by power point slides.
Numerical data were not used in the results. There was no visual illustration either. The result just provided the view of students who participated in this study. It is not possible to know if these opinions was correct. The researchers have also not provided the result analyzed through SPSS. The data are presented in a discursive way, quoting interviews and discussion of the focus group (Burns and Grove, 2005). There is a word limit for the journal and the authors had to meet this limit. This prevent them from providing more results.
Discussion: The researchers suggest that the long questionnaire must have inhibited many from responding. The authors themselves agree that the questionnaire may be complex to understand. It is not known, why the researchers used such a questionnaire. It makes the reader doubt the reliability of the instrument. The focus group did not involve international students and students who were pursuing distance education. Prior studies suggest that international students preferred face to face delivery (Kamin et al., 2001). e-learning is used in HEI as a supplement to conventional teaching (Reime et al., 2008). Limited use of e-learning in education was reported by students in earlier studies (Levy, 2007). The study did not address the correlation between level of complexities in the technology and engage with technology (McVeigh, 2008; Zurmehly and Leadingham 2008).
Conclusion: It is difficult to draw conclusion from the study as there are many limitations in the technique and there is also bias. The judgement is left to the readers. Though there were studies that have studied the experience of students, the researchers have avoided it in the background and included them in the discussion. It would be more beneficial if a more refined study was conducted based on the idea gained through this preliminary survey. The authors failed to highlight issues that need further investigation. The study has significant weakness and thus it is difficult to accept the conclusion provided by the authors. The reference list may be beneficial to researchers to would want to do similar research. The researcher has used his judgement, rather than logical analysis to draw conclusion.
References:
Adams, A. (2004). Pedagogical underpinnings of computer-based learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46(1), pp.5–12.
Bates, T. (2001). National strategies for e-learning in post-secondary education and training. Fundamentals of Educational Planning – No 70 UNESCO. [online] Paris. Available at: http://www.rzii.gov.rs/ FileSystem/SiteDocuments/eBiblioteka/National_Strategies_for_eLearning.pdf on 12 February 2010. [Accessed 18 Apr. 2016].
Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. (2006). Choice Reviews Online, 44(01), pp.44-0457-44-0457.
Britain, S. and Liber, O. (2007). A Framework for the Pedagogic Evaluation of Online Learning Environments.. [online] JISC. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ uploaded_documents/jtap-41.doc on 24 January 2010. [Accessed 18 Apr. 2016].
Broomfield, R. (2016). A nurses’ guide to the critical reading of research. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 26(1), pp.102-109.
Burns, N. and Grove, S. (2005). The practice of nursing research. St. Louis, Mo.: Elsevier/Saunders.
Cox, K. and Holleman, G. (2006). EBP en het PARIHS-model. NTEB, 4(1), pp.22-26. Cox, K. and Holleman, G. (2006). EBP en het PARIHS-model. NTEB, 4(1), pp.22-26.
Dearing, R. (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society. Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. HMSO. London.
Greener, I. (2011). Designing social research. Los Angeles: SAGE.
HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland, (2005). HEFCE StrategyforE-learning.. HEFCE. [online] London. Available at: http:// www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/HEFCE/2005/05_12/ on 8 July 2009. [Accessed 18 Apr. 2016].
KamelBoulos, M., Hetherington, L. and Wheeler, S. (2007). Secondlife:an overviewofthepotentialof3-Dvirtualworldsinmedicalandhealth education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(233–245.).
Kamin, C., Glicken, A., Hall, M., Quarantillo, B. and Merenstein, G. (2001). Evaluation of Electronic Discussion Groups as a Teaching/Learning Strategy in an Evidence-based Medicine Course: A Pilot Study. Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice, 14(1), pp.21-32.
Levy, P. (2007). Editorial. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 22(s2), pp.1-7.
McVeigh, A. (2008). Splattered, Ann McVeigh, Golden Thread Gallery, Belfast, August 2008. Circa, (126), p.63.
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1984). Analysing Qualitative Data: A Source Book for New Research Methods. ,. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.
Morgan, J., Rawlinson, M. and Weaver, M. (2006). Facilitating online reflective learning for health and social care professionals. Open Learning, 21(2), pp.167-176.
Moule, P. (2007). Challenging the five-stage model for e-learning: a new approach. Research in Learning Technology, 15(1).
Moule, P. and Goodman, M. (2009). Nursing Research: An Introduction.. London: Sage.
Moule, P., Ward, R. and Lockyer, L. (2010). Nursing and healthcare students’ experiences and use of e-learning in higher education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(12), pp.2785-2795.
Pittinsky, M. (2002). The Wired Tower: Perspective on the Impact of the Internet on Higher Education. Financial Times/Prentice Hall. London.
Reime, M., Harris, A., Aksnes, J. and Mikkelsen, J. (2008). The most successful method in teaching nursing students infection control – E-learning or lecture?. Nurse Education Today, 28(7), pp.798-806.
Sisson, V. (2011). Types of Diarrhea and Management Strategies. Valerie Sisson. U.S.A: PharmCon Inc.
Wharrad, H., Cook, E. and Poussa, C. (2005). Putting post-registration nursing students on-line: Important lessons learned. Nurse Education Today, 25(4), pp.263-271.
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Sage: London.
ZURMEHLY, J. and LEADINGHAM, C. (2008). Exploring Student Response Systems in Nursing Education. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 26(5), pp.265-270.
