student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

12
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library] On: 10 November 2014, At: 05:45 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Further and Higher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20 Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments? Celayne HeatonShrestha a , Steve May b & Linda Burke c a University of Sussex , Brighton, United Kingdom b Kingston University , KingstonUponThames , United Kingdom c St George's University of London , London, United Kingdom Published online: 06 Mar 2009. To cite this article: Celayne HeatonShrestha , Steve May & Linda Burke (2009) Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33:1, 83-92, DOI: 10.1080/03098770802645189 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098770802645189 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Upload: linda

Post on 09-Mar-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 10 November 2014, At: 05:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Further and HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Student retention in higher education:what role for virtual learningenvironments?Celayne Heaton‐Shrestha a , Steve May b & Linda Burke c

a University of Sussex , Brighton, United Kingdomb Kingston University , Kingston‐Upon‐Thames , United Kingdomc St George's University of London , London, United KingdomPublished online: 06 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Celayne Heaton‐Shrestha , Steve May & Linda Burke (2009) Student retentionin higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?, Journal of Further and HigherEducation, 33:1, 83-92, DOI: 10.1080/03098770802645189

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098770802645189

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Page 2: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learningenvironments?

Celayne Heaton-Shresthaa, Steve Mayb* and Linda Burkec

aUniversity of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom; bKingston University, Kingston-Upon-Thames, United Kingdom; cSt George’s University of London, London, United Kingdom

Ways in which aspects of the student experience associated with first-yearretention at university are likely to be influenced by the use of virtual learningenvironments (VLEs) are explored here through structured interviews withacademic staff and students at one institution (Kingston University). Thisresearch finds that some assumptions made about the value of VLEs in aidingcommunication between students and providing flexibility in modes of learningare not supported, but that retention is likely to be aided by the ways in whichthey can enhance confidence and provide a sense of control and ownership. Thefindings also indicate that students tend to be more positive than staff about therole of the VLE in enhancing their overall performance and experience and assuch provide an impetus for further developments with the expectation ofimproved student retention, performance and satisfaction.

Keywords: student retention; virtual learning environment; institutional casestudy

Introduction

Two pressing issues for UK higher education institutions (HEIs) are student

retention and the use of information communication technologies (ICTs). In recent

years, numerous claims have been made concerning the cost reduction and

efficiencies brought about through the introduction of online learning (Twigg

2003); at the same time, the expectation on the part of students has been,

increasingly, that ICTs would be part of their learning experience (e.g. Fielden 2002).

The government’s ‘widening participation’ agenda, meanwhile, has intensified the

ongoing HEI concern with student early departure, as pressure to attract greater

numbers of students from ‘non-traditional’ backgrounds has grown (e.g. Johnston

2002). This article brings these two concerns together, assessing the claims that have

been made for the role of ICTs in aiding student retention, and, in particular,

exploring how a virtual learning environment (VLE) can support the engagement

and retention of undergraduate students in the context of mixed-mode courses,

where students are expected to attend campus and e-learning materials are designed

to support face-to-face provision rather than replace it.

In the year 2000 Kingston University started to use Blackboard, one of the most

widely adopted VLEs in the UK Higher Education sector. An evaluative research

project looking into its use to support students from diverse backgrounds to progress

to, and succeed in, higher education (Edirisingha et al. 2005) found that it was

used in a variety of ways by lecturers and students (Heaton-Shrestha et al. 2005;

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Further and Higher Education

Vol. 33, No. 1, February 2009, 83–92

ISSN 0309-877X print/ISSN 1469-9486 online

# 2009 UCU

DOI: 10.1080/03098770802645189

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

Heaton-Shrestha et al. 2008), meaning that they would have encountered a range of

pedagogies and diversely structured learning environments. The way in which

students used the VLE was shaped by subject matter and discipline area (Linsey,

Katsifli, and Gipps 2005) and by ease of access to computers. For this reason, the

research considered the features of the VLE experienced by all students, such as

continuous access to a range of learning materials and information, communications

with a broader network of students through discussion boards or email, and the

importance of anonymity. This article explores how a VLE could support processes

and factors known, through institutional and wider research, to play an important

role in the decision to withdraw. The focus is on first-year students on courses that

were largely taught face to face on campus but were supported by a VLE. The

qualitative data collected from staff and students have been analysed to give us a rich

interpretation of its underlying causes and potential implications.

Literature review

The recent audit of student retention in England (National Audit Office 2007) found

there to be scope for improvements in retention and that actions taken to address

this will become increasingly important as widening participation brings in more

students likely to need support; it emphasises a need to go further than simply

addressing learning deficits.

Perhaps the most influential model developed to account for the early departure

of students from HE is that of Tinto (e.g. Tinto 1987), according to which, the

student decision to persist or withdraw is closely associated with the extent to which

he or she has succeeded in becoming both socially and academically integrated into

the institution. This has been adapted by Forbes (2008) to take more account of the

needs of part-time student and include external factors such as the need for paid

employment. In doing so, this ‘new retention model’ emphasises the importance of

peer interaction to aid retention, through both academic acculturation and social

adjustment, and of appropriate and accurate information being given to potential

students before enrolment. This is corroborated by research at KU which found the

prime reported reasons for student withdrawal, particularly in the first semester, to

be linked to unmet expectations and financial pressures (May and Bousted 2003).

Thomas (2002) identified instances of good practice including the provision of peer-

assisted learning schemes and targeted services for minority groups and, similarly,

research at KU (May and Bousted 2004; Hodgson, May, and Marks-Maran 2008)

found that social engagement and peer support were key factors for first-year

students in their decisions to remain on courses. A comprehensive review of the use

of ICT in widening participation and retention initiatives conducted by the

Universities of the North East (Dodgson and Bolam 2002) reported its increasing

use to provide support and guidance online. A key contribution to student retention

was thought to be its potential role in improving social integration by offering

enhanced means of communication and interaction. ICTs were also considered to

play a role in enhancing student retention by allowing for more flexible learning

patterns, allowing students to access resources and services without the need to

physically attend and to do so outside traditional opening hours. They comment that

‘these universities believe that developments in flexible learning will decrease the

likelihood of a student dropping out of university’ (Dodgson and Bolam 2002, 3).

84 C. Heaton-Shrestha et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

However, empirical studies assessing the role of ICTs in improving retention rates in

campus-based undergraduate courses have been singularly lacking. This is all the

more regrettable since the combination of flexibility with opportunities for social

interaction in ‘blended learning’ (i.e. combining face-to-face and electronic media)

may lead us to expect higher retention rates on ‘blended’-mode programmes.

Research method

Interviews were conducted with 12 male and 11 female members of academic staff at

KU, including lecturers, professors, educational technology ‘champions’, pastoral

care staff and workshop leaders. These were drawn from across the humanities,

social sciences, business and technology disciplines and included staff ranging from

the advanced Blackboard user to the non-user.

In addition, 43 interviews were carried out with students from four schools

within the university (computing, sociology, modern languages, and business), as

shown in Table 1. These, with the exception of the School of Modern Languages,

were selected in consideration of their relatively high proportion of ‘non-

traditional students’ (i.e. other than those from the A-level/GCSE route) and

because they provided contrasting subject areas. In each school, a ‘core’ module

was selected so as to ensure that the cohort would be the same from semester 1 to

semester 2. Equal numbers of students with high and low scores in the ‘deep

approach to learning’ were selected for interview from the overall sample who had

completed a Learning and Studying Questionnaire (Hounsell and McCune 2002)

in the first semester.

Data were collected through two individual, face-to-face, semi-structured

interviews with each student over two semesters. The aim was to document how

they used the VLE, their learning style preferences and their approaches to studying.

A detailed analysis (Heaton-Shrestha et al. 2007) has shown that a VLE could

accommodate a variety of learning style models and approaches, including activist

and reflective styles (Honey and Mumford 1992) and approaches to learning and

studying described by Entwistle (2003). However, in their critical review of the

literature, Coffield et al. (2004) highlight the range of concepts of learning style and

the variety of instruments to measure them and recommend that the use of some of

the most widely used instruments in research and practice be discontinued because of

‘serious weaknesses, for example low reliability, poor validity and negligible impact

on pedagogy’ (138). While we used the approaches-to-learning categories from the

Learning and Studying Questionnaire (Hounsell and McCune 2002) to inform the

selection of interviewees, the analysis involved a much broader method, both

generating study style categories from the interview data and elaborating those pre-

existing across a range of learning style models.

In the first interview a series of statements were printed on cards and interviewees

asked to respond, first by stating whether they felt these were ‘like me’ or ‘not like

me’, then to rank the statements if possible, and then to elaborate on this

categorisation by giving an example. This approach was used in previous studies to

help teachers articulate their implicit theories of learning (Gipps, McCallum, and

Hargreaves 2000) and models of assessment (Gipps et al. 1995). The second interview

also solicited students’ evaluation of the usefulness of the VLE in carrying out

various learning-related tasks, after two semesters of use. Both sets of interviews

Journal of Further and Higher Education 85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

Table 1. Profile of interviewed students.

University school Gender Family background Entry qualifications

Ma

le

Fem

ale

1st

ing

ener

ati

on

into

HE

No

t1

stin

gen

era

tio

nin

toH

E

Mix

A-l

evel

/GN

VQ

Acc

ess

cou

rse

No

n-U

Kq

ua

lifi

cati

on

Wo

rk-b

ase

dq

ua

lifi

cati

on

Ad

va

nce

dv

oca

tio

na

lce

rtif

ica

te

No

ta

va

ila

ble

Modern languages

(n510)

4 6 5 5 9 0 1 0 0 0

Computing (n514) 8 6 10 4 9 1 0 2 1 1

Business (n57) 5 2 5 2 6 1 0 0 0 0

Sociology (n512) 4 8 6 6 8 1 0 3 0 0

86

C.

Hea

ton

-Sh

restha

eta

l.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

lasted between 40 minutes and one hour; were one to one and audio recorded, and

took place on campus.

Staff were interviewed about their experiences of using the VLE as part of their

teaching on first-year undergraduate courses. Here their attitudes and views towards

Blackboard and the ways in which they felt it had affected teaching and its impact on

students were explored. The interviews lasted between 60 and 100 minutes and were

audio recorded. The tapes were transcribed in full and entered into the qualitative

data analysis software NVivo2.

Findings

The following themes were generated by relating an analysis of date from interviews

with students and staff to factors associated in the literature with student retention.

Performance

The VLE was intended to support the retention of less-well-performing students by

ensuring, through the development of key skills modules and, more generically,

making learning materials easily accessible, that occasional non-attendance did not

lead to their falling behind.

Staff views on the impact of Blackboard were mixed and impressionistic: some

felt the ability of students to access materials as suited them had a positive effect on

performance, while others did not, even though they recognised that it did allow for

students to be better prepared. For example:

[Weblinks in Blackboard] helps them to become effective as … it gives them access tomaterial that they would not necessarily go and find themselves or find simply. (Lecturer M)

In contrast to staff, the students interviewed were almost unanimously positive about

the effects of the VLE on their own performance. They felt it to have enhanced their

effectiveness in a variety of ways: by making materials, notes, hints, tips, and

websites easily accessible; by allowing for further practice and reinforcement of

course material; by maintaining awareness of ‘what’s going on’; and by allowing

better organisation and tracking of their own learning.

Engagement with the course

Staff views concerning the role of Blackboard in getting and keeping students

engaged with the course were mixed. For example:

They are triggered to do something because they have received a message – it might be areminder about a coming assessment – and then they panic … [and] they come and seeyou. So you are getting more people coming out of the woodwork because of a chanceencounter with Blackboard. (Lecturer B)

The lecturer making this last comment was ambivalent about the role of the VLE in

enhancing students’ engagement with their courses. Later in the interview, he

expressed a concern that Blackboard might also keep what he termed ‘semi-

detached’ students in that state, rather than re-engaging them. He explained that

‘they think they can get away with looking at Blackboard slides’.

Students’ responses were also equivocal, with 50% reporting that the VLE had

helped them to feel actively involved in their studies. The others tended to feel that

Journal of Further and Higher Education 87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

‘involvement’ was derived from an internal drive, rather than from extrinsic factors,

and that using the VLE was a ‘passive’ experience.

Enhancing social integration

When the Blackboard communications tools were used, it was most frequently

between students and staff. Sixty-five per cent of students reported that the VLE

had not made relating to others easier; while only 19% felt that it had. But while

respondents were almost unanimous in their view that the VLE had contributed

little to exchange and communication among themselves, their view of its role in

promoting a sense of community was more positive, providing them with a sense

of belonging and commonality. These students emphasised that it achieved this

effect by imparting a sense that ‘we’re all in the same boat’, or by providing

‘a common talking point’. This is consistent with Preece’s (2000) observation

concerning the value of ‘lurking’ or peripheral involvement, and its ability to

foster a strong sense of belonging to the community despite a lack of direct

interaction.

It does [make you feel part of a community] because … you’re all level one; it’s all prettymuch the same students … you do feel you belong to a group, and you’re part ofsomething. (Student H)

Control and ownership

Students were asked how they felt towards the statement: ‘Blackboard helps me to

feel I am in control of my learning and studying.’ More than two thirds agreed. This

represented the highest proportion of positive responses to questions about the

VLE’s role in learning and studying. In other words, while the contribution of the

VLE to students’ learning might have been uncertain in many other respects, it

played an undeniable role in enhancing students’ sense of control over the learning

process. Reasons given for these views related either to the access to greater

information about the programme (contents and lecturer expectations) or to the

ability of the VLE to give students the choice of how, when and where to learn and

study.

[I agree] because you’re able to be active … you can log onto Blackboard yourself …you don’t need to ask or go through any other means … you are in control. (Student A)

Most staff were less positive about this feature, expressing a concern that it might

empower students to make the wrong choice (e.g. not to attend lectures, or not to

read and research broadly, limiting themselves to materials provided through

Blackboard).

Confidence and motivation

Staff did not identify a specific role for the VLE in increasing student confidence and

had mixed views on the ways in which and extent to which it affected motivation.

I worry that it may actually have the opposite effect … decreasing social interactionbetween people which may demotivate [students]; [hampering] getting the excitement ofthe lecturer across … [and the] danger of people becoming isolated and no longer [partof] a social system. (Lecturer J)

88 C. Heaton-Shrestha et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

Students were more positive. Fifty-seven per cent found that it had helped them feel

more confident, and forty-one per cent that it had helped them feel percent better

motivated. The main factor in each of these cases was accessibility of resources,

which allowed them to gauge their level of understanding through looking at

contributions to the discussion boards, and permitted them to read about lectures in

advance, and also enabled them to ‘keep on track’ or ‘not lose sight’ of their studies.

Seeing other people’s ideas [on the discussion board] … can highlight areas, which otherpeople may have missed that you’ve picked up on; … that instils confidence when youthink that you’ve spotted something that others haven’t. (Student L)

Where motivation was not associated with course provision, but stemmed from

‘within’ (e.g. personal ambition, interest in the course or academic success) and from

the social environment (pressure from peers), access to a VLE was found to make

little difference.

All students felt that while confidence was related to a range of factors (personal,

coursework completion, grades, etc.) it was not undermined by the VLE. The fact

that 57% explicitly identified the VLE as raising their confidence level therefore

represents an important finding.

Study styles

We found that the way in which students prefer to study shaped the way they made

use of the VLE, and that it neither discouraged nor encouraged any particular

learning style, whether identified through a learning style model or developed from

the data. Seventy per cent reported that Blackboard had allowed them to ‘study

according to my preferred way of studying’. The reasons given related mostly to

issues of flexibility – for example, by allowing them to work in a quiet place, at home

and at their own pace, or by providing a useful alternative to books or their notes

taken in lectures. This variety, commented one student, ‘helped me to find my own

preferred way’. Others found that since Blackboard only provided outlines, it was

possible for them to use it in number of ways.

Most of those who felt that Blackboard did not help them to study in their

preferred manner simply felt that it had not played any specific part. ‘I do that

anyway,’ explained one student. Some also said that they had not been able to access

a computer and that Blackboard was ‘too structured’ for them.

Discussion

The findings show there to be a divergence between the perspectives of staff and

students in relation to some aspects of VLE use in teaching and learning, particularly

in relation to the issues of student performance and the extent to which it increased

their control and ownership. Most students felt that Blackboard had enhanced their

effectiveness, while staff, on the other hand, were much less certain. They were

concerned that the VLE posed a threat to their efforts to engage students and that it

might actually lead to disengagement. In its current strategic plan, Kingston

University (2005) reiterates its commitment to:

continue to develop new approaches to the flexible delivery of courses, for example,through e-learning and blended learning, in order to improve the student experience andmeet the needs of a more diverse student body. (12)

Journal of Further and Higher Education 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

This makes it all the more important that staff are in touch with individual and

overall student perceptions in order to develop the VLE and maximise its positive

aspects. A survey of VLE usage in a school at the University of Sydney (Peat et al.

2001) also found differences between staff and student views of the usefulness and

engagement of computer based-resources, concluding that:

The staff who teach in these large first year courses need to be more informed of thecharacteristics of the student cohort … and to remember that the student body requiresa variety of learning experiences that not only embrace the electronic world but are alsoanchored in the more traditional offerings. (478)

The importance of listening to and acting on ‘the student voice’ is being prioritised at

KU through the introduction of annual student surveys and the setting up of a

dedicated high-level Student Experience Group.

Some of the issues associated with enhanced student experience and retention in

the literature, and used in the coding of the data, did not accord with the experience

of the KU students. Enhanced flexibility and communication with peers and the

university were not flagged up as particularly significant by students and the VLE

was not – except for the few for whom it imparted a sense of belonging – a primary

means of social integration, nor did it play a significant role in helping students meet

or establish networks of support. Other elements in interviews with students suggest

that this may be due to the plethora of avenues for social interaction in blended-

learning courses, and preference for these alternatives (non-university webmail,

chatrooms, mobile phones and face-to-face meetings). Similarly, the attendance

requirement of blended-learning courses meant that the students were less likely to

exploit the flexibility afforded by a VLE; the majority used the VLE most between

lectures and while on campus, even when they had the facilities to do so outside these

times and places.

While the opportunity for pedagogical innovation (e.g. rethinking modes of

assessment), better and faster feedback to students, and the flexibility of distance

modalities of learning were not significant contributors of the VLE to the student

experience; the student-driven roll-out of Blackboard in the university (see Heaton-

Shrestha et al. 2005) and the positive comments concerning the ways in which it

improved communication between lecturers and students leave little doubt of its

overall value. The findings illustrate ways in which its contribution to retention may

be seen in terms of the models of Tinto (1987) and later Forbes (2008), through its

enhancement of academic integration: it accommodated learning style well, helped

increase confidence and the students’ sense of control, and enhanced the student

experience by providing support from the institution.

The resource function of the VLE was key both to overcoming the staff–

student mismatch in perception through clarifying expectations and in addressing

students’ need for a clearer structure, organisation and sense of direction in their

studies. The very positive responses to questions in this study concerning the

ability of the VLE to bestow a sense of control over the learning process, and the

finding that Blackboard accommodates diversity in learning styles, is evidence of a

mechanism that could better enable students, increasingly from diverse back-

grounds, to counter any perceived or actual lack of fit and thereby improve

retention rates. While the precise impact of VLE use on student retention rates

awaits elucidation through further and large-scale quantitative studies, the

evidence suggests that it is a worthwhile complement to institutional initiatives

90 C. Heaton-Shrestha et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

to help student retention and satisfaction and thus has implications for HEI

managers and policy makers, given, for example, the increasing significance of

student evaluation for the HE sector (e.g. the National Student Satisfaction

Survey).

Finally, when considering the findings from this research, it is important to bear

in mind that it was conducted at the very outset of the implementation of a VLE, at a

time when staff were still familiarising themselves with the technology and having to

make changes to their teaching. This suggests that it might offer different benefits at

different stages of its implementation, and that further research would do well to

explore ways in which it affects student retention in settings where VLE use by staff

has had time to mature.

Notes on contributors

Celayne Heaton Shrestha is a research fellow in the anthropology department of the

University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. She is working on a research project under the LSE-based

and ESRC funded Non-Governmental Action Program, exploring the nature of public action

under conditions of civil conflict and post-conflict contexts. Prior to this, she had worked as

research fellow on the WAS project at Kingston University (2002-2005) (e-learning to support

non-traditional students’ preparation for HE and for undergraduates’ development of deep

approaches to learning).

Steve May is a senior institutional researcher at Kingston University UK. Formerly a lecturer

in the further education sector, his work focuses on planning, monitoring and evaluating

initiatives designed to support the transition of non traditional students into higher education

and their subsequent progression through to graduation and employment.

Linda Burke is the associate dean for practice education, head of undergraduate nursing and

reader in nursing, in the Faculty of Health and Social Care Sciences, Kingston University and

St George’s, University of London. She has teaching and management experience gained from

working in senior positions in the Department of Health, and within NHS and higher

education organisations. She has published in a number of areas, notably regarding student

support in higher education, health care education, and exploring the relationship between

education policy and its impact in practice.

References

Coffield, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004. Learning styles and pedagogy in

post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research

Centre.

Dodgson, R., and H. Bolam. 2002. Student retention, support and widening participation in

the north east of England. Regional widening participation project. Sunderland:

Universities for the North East.

Edirisingha, P., C. Heaton-Shrestha, T. Linsey, M. Hill, C. Gipps, and R. Gant. 2005.

Widening access and success: Learning and new technologies in higher education. Kingston

University, Kingston-Upon-Thames.

Entwistle, N. 2003. Concepts and conceptual frameworks underpinning the ETL project.

Occasional Report 3. School of Education, University of Edinburgh. http://www.etl.

tla.ed.ac.uk//docs/ETLreport3.pdf.

Fielden, J. 2002. Costing e-learning: Is it worth trying or should we ignore the figures? The

Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. http://www.obhe.ac.uk/index.html.

Journal of Further and Higher Education 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?

Forbes, A. 2008. A new retention model. Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy

Annual Conference, 1 July 2008, Harrogate, UK.

Gipps, C., B. McCallum, and E. Hargreaves. 2000. What makes a good primary school teacher?

Expert classroom strategies. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Gipps, C., B. McCallum, S. McAlister, and M. Brown. 1995. Emerging models of teacher

assessment in the classroom. In Evaluating authentic assessment, ed. H. Torrance.

Buckingham: Open Univ. Press.

Heaton-Shrestha, C., P. Edirisingha, L. Burke, and T. Linsey. 2005. Introducing a VLE into

campus-based undergraduate teaching: Staff perspectives on its impact on teaching.

International Journal of Educational Research 43, no. 6: 370–86.

Heaton-Shrestha, C., C. Gipps, P. Edirisingha, and T. Linsey. 2007. Learning and e-learning

in HE: The relationship between student learning style and VLE use. Research Papers in

Education 22, no. 4: 443–64.

Heaton-Shrestha, C., S. May, P. Edirisingha, T. Linsey, and L. Burke. 2009, in press. From

face to face to e-mentoring: Does the ‘e’ add any value for mentors? International Journal

of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20, no. 2.

Hodgson, D., S. May, and D. Marks-Maran. 2008. Promoting the development of a

supportive learning environment through action research from the ‘middle out’.

Educational Action Research 16, no. 4: 531–544.

Honey, P., and A. Mumford. 1992. The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.

Hounsell, D., and V. McCune. 2002. Teaching–learning environments in undergraduate

biology: Initial perspectives and findings. Occasional Report 2. School of Education,

University of Edinburgh. http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport2.pdf.

Johnston, V. 2002. Improving student retention – by accident or design? Exchange 1, no. 1:

9–11.

Kingston University. 2005. Kingston University Strategic Plan 2005/06 to 2009/10. Kingston

University, Kingston-Upon-Thames.

Linsey, T., D. Katsifli, and C. Gipps. 2005. The costs and benefits of implementing a

university-wide VLE: Some real data. Journal of Science Education 6 (Special Issue):

27–29.

May, S., and M. Bousted. 2003. Shall I stay or shall I go? Students who leave Kingston

University in semester one. Educational Developments 4, no. 2: 19–21.

May, S., and M. Bousted. 2004. Investigation of student retention through an analysis of the

first-year experience of students at Kingston University. Widening Participation and

Lifelong Learning 6, no. 2: 42–48.

National Audit Office. 2007. Staying the course: The retention of students in higher education.

London: The Stationery Office. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-07/

0607616.pdf.

Peat, M., S. Franklin, A. Lewis, and R. Sims. 2001. Staff and student views of the usefulness of

information technology materials within an integrated curriculum: Are these educational

resources effective in promoting student learning? Proceedings of the 18th Annual

Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education, 471–80,

University of Melbourne. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/

papers/peatm2.pdf.

Preece, J. 2000. Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester:

Wiley.

Thomas, L. 2002. Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus.

Journal of Education Policy 17, no. 4: 423–32.

Tinto, V. 1987. Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Twigg, C.A. 2003. Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning.

Educause Review. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0352.pdf.

92 C. Heaton-Shrestha et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

05:

45 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014