Student perceptions on skills and learning challenges in the use of educational technology in a low-contact, blended and professional study context. Overview of Pilot Study Spring 2008 Paul Catherall

Rationale Previous talks have discussed the minutiae of issues in learning systems, this presentation attempts to explore a practical research phase – for more comprehensive coverage of the background to the topic, see previous publications on my Web site: Aims of the presentation To provide some information on the research project to date. To establish the tone and stance of the project as an enquiry into the research context. To discuss the special use of the methodology and justify how this has been used. To unify some the project themes using the above considerations (to provide a ‘bigger picture’ of where the research is hopefully heading). Part 1 - Background to Project and Literature Review Part 2 - Pilot Study overview

Part 1 - Background to Project and Literature Review Early considerations on e-learning (electronic learning) Began project in late 2004 after being approached to write on the topic of e-learning. The resultant text Delivering e-learning completed before I registered for PhD, but since prompted some observations: …a ‘hype’ area of professional interest (as indicated by the book)… …characterised, championed and claimed by various ‘camps’… …lack of clarity (in the literature) on the nomenclature of e-learning – closely linked to… …a diverse array of theory, systematic, cultural and political perspectives on what e-learning is… …the idealised perspectives on e-learning vs. the social, educational etc. (real-world issues). …reliance and integration of e-learning with medium of the World Wide Web (e-learning = Web site?). …growing trend for ubiquitous adoption of VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments). …multi million $/£ Industry, attracting corporations such as Microsoft, Thompson Net G. …increasing HE adoption for distance learning, international / franchise delivery. …sense of exploration and experimentation similar to the Web 2.0 phenomenon. …the student predicament in HE and trend toward low-contact VLE-facilitated study (Blended learning), additionally we see some recent trends : growth in demand for technical, business-related and other vocational subjects; growth of the part-time student base; growth in the numbers of non-traditional students (including mature students) requiring support for development of - core study skills; increasing legal remit to support students possessing disabilities, including visual and other access requirements; increase in low-contact study, requiring flexible approaches to learning, teaching and communication. (Catherall 2005)

The Proposal (and some issues) Sought to approach the condition of the emergent model of part-time, professional study – i.e. the new vocationalised / professionalised context for Higher Education. Title of Proposal: Student perceptions on skills and learning challenges in the use of educational technology in a part-time, distributed and professional study context. Since starting a recent practical phase of the research project, several issues have arisen – Possibly need to replace the term ‘distributed’ with ‘blended’ since this has recently emerged as a more precise definition of combined class/ online study. Need for looser interpretation of ‘professional’ since this implies precise boundaries of hierarchical attainment and status. The original aim of this parameter was to target students who might be studying in a work-related capacity, e.g. chartered status for accountancy or marketing. However, feedback from the recent pilot study would suggest this parameter is problematic, due to breadth of undergraduate and postgraduate work- related programmes. Issues regarding ‘part-time’ vs. other forms of low-contact study. The complete proposal and further information is available at :

Blended Learning – definitions and theories Blended Learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course. (Heinze and Procter 2007)

The e-moderating model Salmon’s e-moderating model (Salmon, 2000), indicates the importance activity in a social context.

Laurillard’s Conversational Framework Not strictly an e-learning model, but demonstrates a model for tutor-student transactions… The (transactions require) at least three engagements with one topic, meaning that a student will have the opportunity to improve on the same task; There is no one right media for delivery, each media has it’s own drawbacks. (Heinze and Procter 2007)

Other theories emphasising social and human dimensions of learning… Major challenge of the project – how to develop a stance for integrating literature review i.e. existing research, theories, paradigms and schemas into the methodology (discuss later)….

Trends in the adoption of learning systems (Policy) Recent emphasis by the UK Labour Government for widening access to post-statutory education and training and use of emerging technologies to achieve these aims. Reports such as the Dearing Report (1997), The Learning Age (1998) and 21st Century Skills Realising Our Potential (2003) presented both industry and the education sectors with a number of goals focused on improving educational standards as a vehicle to strengthen the UK economy, the aims of this legislation can be summarised in the following extract from 21st Century Skills: There are four principles underlying our approach to improved publicly-funded training provision for adults. It should: Be led by the needs of employers and learners. Be shaped by the skill needs prioritised in each sector, region and locality. Make the best use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to deliver and assess learning. Give colleges and training providers maximum discretion to decide how best to respond to needs... (p. 87). More recently, the government paper Harnessing Technology, transforming learning and children’s services (2005) describes the Government’s vision to develop the use of ICTs within all educational sectors. These reports emphasise the importance of a demand-led approach within the education sectors and the development of links between education providers and industry - prompting a debate on the role of colleges and universities in the wider economy and implications for subject areas within a market-led approach to educational funding. Gibson, Newton and Dixon (1999) comment on this emerging agenda:...sub-degree level courses and flexible structures of certification have become more common. Access to lifelong learning has increasingly been seen by policymakers at all levels as a social and economic priority. Universities have been encouraged to adopt an inclusive approach to recruitment, i.e. for mature, disabled and ethnic minority entrants; recent statistics suggest an increase in the number of entrants matching these criteria, suggesting a growing trend in mature, part-time study: 1,236,300 (66%) of all enrolments are full-time, an increase in numbers of 3% since 2000/01. The number of part-time enrolments also grew by 3% over the same period. (Office of National Statistics, 2003).

Trends in the adoption of learning systems (Technology) Government advocacy has filtered down to professional bodies and other sources of advocacy, most notably in the JISC vision for electronic libraries, encouraging the development of MLEs (Managed Learning Environments): Web-based learning systems provide a range of interactive functions, including communication channels, content-publishing and assessment tools. It can be seen that these systems have begun to permeate and impact many aspects of post-statutory education, with recent Web technologies allowing for closer systems integration across institutional systems, including library catalogue, student records and finance systems. In the UK, this institute-wide computing infrastructure is often considered an holistic learning environment: Whilst terms such as the ‘digital library’ and ‘e-university’ have been used to describe the transformation of traditional library and information facilities toward increasing digitization and database-driven systems, it can be seen that the Web-enabled MLE represents a shift from campus-based systems to personalised and ubiquitous access for end-users. The role e-learning in expanding the distance learning market and delivery of overseas courses has been the subject of much recent debate, offering a range of communication tools and content publishing features to facilitate Web-based interaction and content dissemination for low-contact and distance learning students. According to the latest sector-wide research, some 95% of Higher Education institutions in the UK have some form of learning system, actively supporting and delivering educational programmes for tens of thousands of students (UCISA 2005).

Trends in the adoption of learning systems (Criticisms) Literature indicates a considerable gap between the government’s vision for ICT integration and the student experience: A number of research and policy papers addressing the issue of the digital divide identify specific groups of people as being especially disadvantaged in their uptake of ICTs. These include: people on low incomes, people with few educational qualifications or with low literacy levels, the unemployed, elderly people, people in isolated or rural areas, people with disabilities, sole parents, women and girls. Because they are often already disadvantaged in terms of education, income and health status... (Cullen 2001, 312) The interactive, social and mentoring relationship between tutors and students has also been cited as a casualty of e-learning where increasing use of technology rather than class-based methods inevitably exacerbates low contact between teacher and student, having obvious implications for the student experience, the loss of learning insights, non-visual cues and other social aspects of traditional class based study. Other criticisms include the lack of control over academic content by educators, where systems are invariably managed by IT professionals and administrators. Academics can also feel institutional policy is forcing their adoption of systems. Noble (1998) considers the imposition of institutional policy on academic practice: Once faculty and courses go online, administrators gain much greater direct control over faculty performance and course content than ever before and the potential for administrative scrutiny, supervision, regimentation, discipline and even censorship increase dramatically. The widespread adoption of learning systems can also be seen to facilitate a new commercial market. This systematisation of learning is suggested as an inevitable outcome by Halket (2002): There is no need for the creation of courses by those who did not create them before. There is no need for any new institutions. There is every need for existing institutions and existing educators to rise to the new challenge and have the best possible tools put at their disposal. Noble links the growth of the e-learning industry with increasing commercialisation (commoditization) of post-statutory education, citing the growth of digital industries as a direct result of the collapse of older heavy industries in the 1980s: The foremost promoters of this transformation are rather the vendors of the network hardware, software, and "content" Apple, IBM, Bell, the cable companies, Microsoft, and the edutainment and publishing companies Disney, Simon and Schuster, Prentice-Hall, et al - who view education as a market for their wares, a market estimated by the Lehman Brothers investment firm potentially to be worth several hundred billion dollars. (Noble 1998).

Grounded Theory - reappraising the context The literature review and early reading indicated a particular trend in Higher Education toward mature, working students, part-time study patterns and increased uptake of professional (or work-related) academic study, accompanied by increasing use of VLEs and related systems. However, there were several problems approaching the research – Wide range of existing writing on the general topic of e-learning, blended learning etc. reflecting… Diverse interpretations, theories, schemas and models for learning via technology – where to start? Complex theoretical perspectives on the process, e.g. repeated emphasis on constructivist-based e-learning. Difficult to refine my area of study. Difficult to relate the broad area of interest with established theory. Grounded Theory – a possible solution? I was first alerted to Grounded Theory by one of my research supervisors where I recently registered to conduct a PhD at Manchester Metropolitan University. Key features of Grounded Theory that interested me included the focus on a ‘substantive area’ as opposed to a research question or hypothesis and the faculty to develop a theory from raw data.

Grounded Theory - reappraising the context Grounded Theory according to Glaser emphasises the ‘emergence’ of categories (also called conceptual codes) out of data, it is up to the researcher to constantly compare field notes (or ‘memos’) to identify ‘indicators’ which reveal the concerns of participants; the researcher compares categories to reveal an underlying core category or concern which represents a theory explaining the behavioural process at work within the given context. For Glaser, the fundamental issue is 'emergence' of data over ‘forcing’, i.e. the importance of refraining from bringing a preconceived theory, ideology or concept to the substantive area. There are several important implications for professional researchers, most notably what Glaser calls ‘the research question’, emphasising the need to refrain from allowing a professional interest or area of debate to pre-empt the research process at the data collection or conceptualisation stages. The intention of Grounded Theory is to interrogate a participant group within a known context and behavioural cycle, approaching the social context with an open mind and listening to the concerns of participants in order to define their concerns conceptually. Examples of substantive areas at the Grounded Theory conference include: Children undertaking psycho therapy. Nurses working with difficult patients. Distance learners. Doctors in Denmark during a period of systematic change. Glaser says ‘a missed problem is a problem whether or not the researcher discovers and attends to it or not..’ (Glaser 1992, p. 22). The emergence of a Grounded Theory may therefore reveal a previously unknown participant concern or illustrate a new form of behavioural cycle in responding to the concern. Grounded Theory is better considered as a pure research methodology rather than a research ‘method’ such as action research; Grounded theory comprises a complete methodology framework which may be used for a project in its entirety complete with its own theories concerning truth in data and the role of belief systems. Grounded Theory therefore does not sit well with established theoretical paradigms nor is Grounded Theory appropriate when evaluating pre-defined variables against a known framework of values, Grounded Theory attempts to discover problems from the perspective of participants rather than from the perspective of critical models or ideology-based theories such as Postmodernism, Marxism or Feminism.

Grounded Theory - reappraising the context London Grounded Theory Conference with Barney Glaser, 24 – 26 th April 06 See my article on the conference online - Objections to my project by Barney Glaser During the London Conference, I had the opportunity to discuss my own research proposal, a traditional research plan with defined aims and objectives; Glaser suggested that a research proposal of this kind is contradictory to Grounded Theory, since the research aims merely pre-empt or preconceive emergent data in the substantive area. Another issue of concern to Glaser was the use of the term ‘distributed learning’ which Glaser thought could imply evaluation of an established theoretical model of study. However, I felt the use of the term ‘distributed learning’ was justifiable under a Grounded Theory study, since the term is anecdotal and simply describes a known context, i.e. combined class- based and online learning (I have since considered ‘blended learning’ a better term, or even removing jargon of this sort from the proposal). Another aspect which emerged at various points in the conference was the issue of the literature search, which Glaser suggests can obscure the researcher’s view of the substantive area against the backdrop of established theories, descriptive literature etc. However, Glaser did endorse third party literature, when fed into the research on the same level as other data, i.e. comprising data which can be compared with participant responses and processed in the same way. This kind of information is paramount to the development of what Glaser has termed ‘Theoretical Sensitivity’, i.e. developing a broad awareness of the wider context surrounding the substantive area, this awareness increases the researcher’s sensitivity to developing theoretical categories which interrelate and explain patterns in those categories.

Grounded Theory - reappraising the context The Theory The identification of the ‘core category’ (or core variable) is the goal of the Grounded Theory project, this is the theory that conceptually defines the most important process which participants seek to resolve (often unconsciously) and which is usually related to all the other participant concerns. This conceptual theory is ultimately drawn from raw participant data and processed in a neutral and objective manner using the categorisation and conceptualisation methods described above. In ‘Theoretical Sensitivity (Glaser 1978), Glaser defines the requirements for a grounded theory. The Grounded Theory must be : Informed by ‘as few predetermined ideas as possible’, i.e. not a ‘prior hypothesis’. Must have ‘grab’ – i.e. generate interest, be memorable and original. Fit – i.e. the theory must have ‘relevance’ to the original data in a recognisable way. The theory should ‘work’ i.e. ‘explain what happened, predict what will happen and interpret what is happening in an area of substantive or formal inquiry’. The theory should conceptualise the substantive area. The theory must be ‘modifiable’, i.e. the theory should allow for repeated application to new data. The theory should ultimately explain the main concern of the participant group and how they are trying to continually solve it. The theory should ‘transcend’ the substantive area being studied. (Glaser p. 3)

Part 2 - Pilot study using the Grounded Theory methodology Overview of the Pilot study The original proposal considered the research topic from the position of established theory and schemes for learning via technology, e.g. Objective 6. Contribute to the development of a matrix for assessment of distributed learning and study skills requirements However, the chosen methodology stresses the need to establish only the ‘substantive area’, removing the distraction of existing literature or ‘the professional problem’ (Glaser 1992). Whilst continuing to read and develop my literature review, I needed to keep the Grounded Theory in perspective as the overarching methodology used for the research, which due to the nature of Grounded Theory as a social sciences research method implies a practical research focus. For Glaser, the literature review is simply part of the ‘constant comparative method’ – but also used to develop ‘theoretical sensitivity’ to the processes, activities, structures and general issues surrounding the substantive area – i.e. being aware of the subject or area of activity under scrutiny, including comparative theoretical explanations or models – but importantly making connections with the research results toward the end of the practical phase, referring to such theories as comparative data which may agree or disagree with emergent concepts and theory. I felt it necessary to begin a pilot study to explore the use of Grounded Theory and to prepare for a main practical research phase later. I also needed to consider how to build other research aims with the methodology, including the literature review. In order to carry out practical research at my chosen Higher Education institution (the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education), it was necessary to undertake a lengthy ethical approval process. This was approved in early 2007 and included scope for both group-based student interviews, individual ad- hoc interviews and staff interviews as required – the rationale being that the methodology could ‘lead’ to coding which required staff discussions and analysis.

Pilot study parameters The pilot study was carried out over February The parameters for the pilot research would broadly match the main phase and included – Approx 30 pre-arranged interviews held mostly individually with students. Several of the above number were held in a group setting, i.e. class-based with opportunity to address two or three individuals. Interviews lasted from minutes each. Interviews were ‘led’ by an aide memoir for purposes related to the NEWI ethics procedure (to ensure suitable parameters for the discussion), this was compiled as a general indicator for the kind of discussions that might ensue, but in practice this was not used during the interviews. A consent form was provided to students to sign, this included a basic disclaimer regarding the nature of the interview. An information sheet was provided containing a broad description of the research with a URL for further details. Participation was voluntary in all cases (various communications were established with students to determine their willingness to participate). The interview data would be anonymous. The interviews for the pilot were mostly taken with certification/ chartered-status groups, MBAs and similar business related courses, reflecting the research project parameters. All of the groups interviewed were part-time, some individuals interviewed ad-hoc were ‘full time’. The interviewees were drawn from all years, i.e. 1-3/ postgraduate rather than simply limited to first year students as suggested in the proposal.

Stages of the Pilot (1 - The interview process) The interviewer always introduced himself informally to the sample group before commencing either individual or group interviews, indicating the relationship of the research project to NEWI facilities and how their responses would provide feedback to NEWI academic and support departments. No remuneration or enticement was offered for the pilot, the uptake of academic staff agreeing to provide access to students (and ad-hoc interviews) proved this was not necessary, possibly due to the topical and essential nature of the interview for the student, i.e. ICT facilities. The interview would begin informally with an open invitation by the interviewer to discuss the student’s experiences of ICT use or general issues related to their study, this proved enough to steer the conversation around to issues of VLE use and related issues important to the student. Whilst early interviews tended to be more open-ended, later interviews would be informed by comments from earlier interviews, allowing for ‘selective coding’ of responses in order to question subsequent students on particular issues, for example, early interviewees frequently mentioned a reliance on the VLE system (e.g. as their first point of contact for completing an assignment), this provided scope for a question which could be re-used in other interviews, leading to confirmation of this as a reoccurring variable.

Stages of the Pilot (2 - Memoing / Descriptive Coding) The memo process involved use of a record sheet containing a number of rows for recording purely descriptive variables and a section for noting any substantive codes (i.e. conceptual insights).

Stages of the Pilot (3 – Sorting and Theory Bits) Open / Substantive Coding (generation of ‘theory bits’) Once each practical interview had been completed, the data contained in the Memo (and from other sources such as notebooks etc.) was typed up in a basic table format in order to sort the information into common descriptive variables (for example, several interviews involved discussion of the Web as a tool within and external to the VLE, these observations were categorised under a common heading). The observations from the interview were recorded as ‘Descriptive codes’ and ‘Code properties’ i.e. elaborating on the nature of the process. Theoretical variables or codes were then noted as possible ‘theory bits’ an early form of conceptualising to explain the behaviour, goal-seeking or problem-solving process the students were engaged in. The variables identified were perhaps easier to group due to the high number of business-related groups in the pilot study. The Descriptive Codes (categories) included - Part-Time study Work/ Study/ Life balance Using ICT Using the Web Working remotely Using resources (ICT, paper, photocopying, travel expenses). Using communication tools Group work VLE use Word-processing / course-work preparation Document Management Using information sources Liaising with employer organisations

Stages of the Pilot (3 – Sorting and Theory Bits) Grouping and Sorting With only 30 interview responses, the sorting process was achievable using the hardcopy memo sheets and other notes taken, transcribed into Word and then grouped under the descriptive codes. For a larger sample, however, it would be manageable to enter all the responses into an Excel document, using the internal filtering and sorting features to deal with a wider range of codes and to easily group similar codes. Selective Coding The use of selective coding is intended for the researcher to reflect on responses as categories and focus interview questions on these areas in order to ‘saturate’ the area of investigation; this process is intended to verify the category and its properties. Some use of selective coding was used in the pilot, for example, the issue of using the VLE as a starting point was raised on several occasions, this provided some scope for further interviews. The process of selective coding is largely transparent.

Stages of the Pilot (3 – Sorting and Theory Bits) Example code – ‘Using the Web’

Stages of the Pilot (3 – Sorting and Theory Bits) There was some overlap regarding the descriptive codes – Example code – ‘Using information sources’ :

Stages of the Pilot (3 – Sorting and Theory Bits) Theoretical Coding Substantive coding using in the write up for the pilot study can be said to represent at least the third stage in the data process, the first being the recording of responses on the memo form, the second being observations of theoretical codes in the memo/ notes, later stages arguably comprised further conceptualisation, including the transcribing of notes to word processor format, defining the code categories and reiterating the code properties. I have used Glaser’s term ‘theory bits’ (Glaser 1992) to suggest the generation of early theoretical or conceptual interpretation of the descriptive categories, some examples include: VLE use (descriptive category) VLE document seeking/ navigation Habitual VLE visiting Habitual VLE avoidance VLE course / course-requirement dependence VLE-literature (books) navigation VLE styles navigation/ reconciliation VLE content deficit reconciliation VLE-external systems navigation VLE-Web reconciliation VLE-course/programme structure reconciliation Course content specificity reconciliation/ navigation

Stages of the Pilot (4 – Defining High Level Codes) Defining High Level Codes and Sub-Codes All the codes generated can be seen to interrelate and revel their relationships, the importance or marginality of issues can be confirmed through selective coding during interviews, leading to higher level codes which more precisely reveal the blended learning process. For example, the following diagram demonstrates the relationship between the codes for the theoretical code ‘ICT Self reliance’ (high level codes in Bold).

Stages of the Pilot (5 – Core Variable) At some stage, the core variable emerges from the Grounded Theory process, derived from constantly comparing the generated codes. By comparing the codes in each category, such as ‘Web Use’, it is possible to determine high-level codes as opposed to more marginal aspects of the process, this is possible by using Glaser’s constant comparative method – determining overlap, peripherally and by validating the importance of codes via selective coding in interview. The following codes appeared higher-level than others, whilst this stage of the research is only a pilot phase, it is possible to suggest a ‘tentative core variable’ from the data by comparing these variables for common traits:

Stages of the Pilot (5 – Core Variable) ….(very) tentative theory of the Tentative Core Variable In brief, the core category or process which the participant continually tries to resolve, could be ‘Self-led multi-systems traversing’ this basically indicates the primary and core concern of the student is related to managing a disparate array of systems, digital and hardcopy resources, logins, PC-based applications and Web-based systems. Some serious considerations for this tentative core category could include ICT literacy of intake students (i.e. having sufficiently high ICT skills to cope with the breadth of ICT requirements for a Higher Education course delivered via blended learning and associated technologies, and support issues for the training, induction, and ongoing support for users in a low-contact/ part-time context. This ‘self-led issue’ is perhaps the most important sub-category, indicating the sense the student has of isolation and demands placed on them to perform a range of basic ICT functions within the VLE and in the use of wider systems.

Next Steps… While the pilot study has revealed interesting pointers, this will only serve as a model for undertaking the process of Grounded Theory. Key aspects absent in the pilot study, but hopefully present in a larger study may include: A longitudal approach to the full practical phases, with the research in phases to identify particular year groups (initial entry students, years 2 and 3 etc.) Whilst the pilot was largely limited to business students, the full practical phase will hopefully involve a wider breadth of academic subjects. The Grounded Theory may need to take into account variations in either of the above parameters. Need to write up the pilot with explanatory diagrams illustrating the process for a published paper. Consider critical and theoretical comparison stage to compare completed theory with established paradigms, ethical & theoretical views/ models. Further details / papers available at: Thanks for listening !

Selected Bibliography Atherton, J. S. (1999). Teaching and Learning. May 2005: Berge, Z. (1998). Barriers To Online Teaching In Post-Secondary Institutions: Can Policy Changes Fix It? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol I, no. 2, Summer 1998 Catherall, P. (2004). Delivering E-Learning for Information Services in Higher Education Oxford: Chandos Publishing Cullen, R. (2001). Addressing the Digital Divide, Online Information Review, 25 (5), Erskine, J. (2003). Learning and Teaching Support Network. Resource Guide in Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). October 2004: Gibson, A, Dixon. D and Newton, R. (1999). Supporting open and distance learners: practice and policy across further and higher education libraries. Library Review, vol. 48, no. 5, pp Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press Glaser, B. (1992). The Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press. Glaser, B. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press Halkett, R. (2002). E-learning and How to Survive It. Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(2), Heinze, A. and Procter C. (2004). Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning. Education in a Changing Environment (conference proceedings University of Salford). January 2008: Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. Routledge. London Lidner, R.W. and Harris, B.R. (1993). Teaching self-regulated learning strategies. In M.R. Simonson and K. Abu-Omar (Eds.). Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1993 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, AECT, p Nixon, C and Helms, M. (2002). Corporate universities vs higher education institutions. Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 34, no. 4, pp Noble, D. (1998). Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education. First Monday (Online Journal), vol. 3, no. 1, April 2006: Office of National Statistics (2003). Student Enrolments on Higher Education Courses at Publicly Funded Higher Education Institutions in the United Kingdom for the Academic Year 2001/2002. September 2006: Rowland, F. and Rubbert, I. (2001). An Evaluation Of The Information Needs And Practices Of Part-Time And Distance-Learning Students In The Context Of Educational And Social Change Through Lifelong Learning. Journal of Documentation 57 (6), p Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to Teaching and Learning online. Kogan Page Limited. London. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) (2005). VLE Surveys – a longitudinal perspective between March 2001, March 2003 and March 2005 for Higher Education in the United Kingdom.