This article was downloaded by: [Johns Hopkins University]

On: 30 December 2014, At: 19:54

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of
Engineering Education
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

Digital learning and

teaching: Evaluation of
developments for students in
higher education
Bob McClelland
Published online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Bob McClelland (2001) Digital learning and teaching:
Evaluation of developments for students in higher education, European Journal of
Engineering Education, 26:2, 107-115, DOI: 10.1080/03043790110033583

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790110033583

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 & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014
 EUR. J. ENG. ED., 2001, VOL. 26, NO. 2, 107–115

Digital learning and teaching: evaluation of developments for

students in higher education

B OB M C C L E L L A N D †

Whilst there has been a great deal of activity in the exploration of learning situ-
ations, especially with the development of computer-aided learning, the intro-
duction of holistic views of learning situations can be useful. In particular, one
current approach is that of supported web-based learning systems to complement
traditional teaching. This paper focuses on recent work at Liverpool John Moores
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014

University (JMU) for one undergraduate module, which with one other has
served to provide a rationale for a web-based teaching, learning and support
environment for academic staff and students. The approach has enabled
researchers at JMU to explore module/programme support development possi-
bilities on the web from academic, quality and commercial perspectives as well as
the cybernetic and evolutionary nature of learning. It has also enabled an explo-
ration of student attitudes and perceptions to the technology, insights into the
learning strategies adopted by students and their relation to student learning
styles. The emphases in studying this system are appropriateness in terms of peda-
gogy, quality of content, presentation and technology Žt. The innovation has
appeal with students, it has exibility as a delivery platform and there are cost
beneŽts and external commercial possibilities. The development process for aca-
demics has been mapped and cost beneŽts of the web site gauged, in order to
develop the strategy of a quality-based web-supported teaching and learning
environment, coupled with a suitable support mechanism and evaluation model,
for staff and students at JMU.

1. Introduction
Modern western ideas about learning and teaching environments have devel-
oped since the 1960s, emerging as current thinking about what has been called open
learning, but which some would prefer to be called resource-based exible learning
(RBFL). Traditionally, one might argue that this concept considers learning to be
student centred as opposed to tutor centred, where learners provide their own
routes through a learning domain negotiating a set of learning events. Sparkes
(1999) links learner-centred teaching to learning styles in technology-based subjects.
This approach can maximize exibility for the learner in the way learning occurs.
However, pedagogically it may not be appropriate to provide a learner with total
unconstrained exibility in a RBFL environment. This has been put concisely by
Boot and Hodgson (1990: 5) in their discussion on constraining open learning:

A deŽnition {of open learning} revolves around a notion of freedom from constraints on
the learning process . . . such constraints are grouped as administrative (time, duration,

† Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University, John Foster Building,

Mount Pleasant, Liverpool L3 5UZ, UK. e-mail: b.mcclelland@livjm.ac.uk

European Journal of Engineering Education
ISSN 0343-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0304379011003358 3
 108 B. McClelland

cost, etc.) and educational (objectives, methods, sequencing, entry qualiŽcations, assess-
ment, etc.) . . . The removal of all constraints would . . . leave us with no educational pro-
vision at all. The issue then is less one of openness and more one of the extents to which
formal educational provision has bounded learning.

Interest about the learning environment and the personal attributes of the learners
continue to concern developers of learning environments, especially where RBFL
is an issue. This is particularly the case for those with interests in the resource of
computer-assisted learning (CAL), because the utility of CAL is sometimes a point
of debate about how it can contribute to understanding, as we observe it, in a
currently limited state of development. More generally, arguments about how
learning environments should constrain learners in the way that they learn, or free
them to explore, must be seen to be as much about socio-culture and paradigms, as
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014

about pedagogy. It is these paradigms that will act as the set of macroscopic
constraints for learners. Different paradigms operate in different levels of a system,
from courses, to course programmes, to institutions.
Most learning theory centres on the work of Kolb (1974), but it is feasible to look
further aŽeld than this by examining learning environments as though they are
systems. This enables us to move slightly away from the traditional language of
learning theory. As a result of previous studies undertaken at JMU, this research
aim is to deŽne a systemic approach towards modelling learners and learning
environments that is based on the ideas that derive from McClelland and Yolles
(1997) theories of viable systems, exposed by cybernetic learning environments. By
viable it is meant able to maintain a separate (fully or partly autonomous) existence.
Viable learning systems, it is maintained, can be viewed as learning systems that
include cybernetic learning strategy and learning style as well as approaches to study
(deep, surface, reproducing learning). Change in these can be explained through
ideas from the concepts of self-organization and evolutionary theory.

2. Rationale for content and delivery

The web-based delivery strategy uses a design and template developed by Laws
(1998) which is learner friendly (to students) and addresses some of the constraints
placed upon learners, such as time of study, place of study, interaction with a tutor
and availability of scarce resources. McClelland developed the module of study, an
undergraduate module Research Methods, in 1998. The module site can be viewed
in Žgure 1 and on the URL http://cwis.livjm.ac.uk/bus/busrmccl/ae2030. A means of
evaluating learning strategy for groups of learners, perceptions and attitudes and
additionally the latter linked to learning styles is proposed here. The study module
is part of the complement of level two undergraduate modules offered within JMU.
It is 12 credits in size (120 learning hours) supported through 12 1-h lectures and 12
1-h problem-based learning workshops. The assessment for the module is a group
research assignment, on a real problem, of 1500 words, and also a 1-h case-based
examination.
The rationale for this approach is linked to meeting current generic under-
graduate requirements concerned with skills and knowledge acquisition. John
(2000), for example, refers speciŽcally to engineering education where he outlines
a set of skills that need to be developed as: communication; inter-personal; team-
working; problem-solving and design; and learning ‘how to learn’.
 Digital learning and teaching 109
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014

Figure 1. Homepage for Research Methods module.

The features of the web site providing essentially for knowledge acquisition were
as follows:
• Course outline and recommended texts.
• Past examination papers and model answers for two recent examinations.
• A copy of the assignment task and a copy of an excellent assignment from the
previous year.
• Staff contact details and an e-mail link.
• Eleven learning resources, chapters from books, targeted written materials all
with copyright clearance (an exclusive feature of the module).
• A list of the 11 topics covered in the module with hypertext links to:
1. Lecture notes—Word
2. Lecture presentation—Powerpoint, containing SPSS instruction (permis-
sion given)
3. Workshop questions—Word
4. Revision material—Word
5. Individual learning resources—Word, SPSS Žles
6. Extensive links to other sites concerned with research methods.
The homepage for this module can be seen in Žgure 1.
 110 B. McClelland

3. Methodology
Researchers at JMU have undertaken several studies involving students that
have used the web site template for a range of undergraduate modules; see
McClelland (2000). As part of the overall studies of web-based learning at JMU, a
questionnaire was developed and used as a vehicle to examine student proŽles and
gauge student perceptions from quantitative data, and elicit qualitative information.
The aim of this is to reŽne the design and content of subsequent sites and examine
various aspects of the student learning process.
A modiŽed version of the general questionnaire was administered to a cohort of
students studying the Research Methods module in semester two of the 1997/98
academic year. The questionnaire was also administered to a benchmark cohort of
level three undergraduate students on the same programme. The benchmark cohort
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014

studied a different module in the same semester, and an identical web-based support
was used to support their learning. Both modules studied were quantitative in
nature. Research methods had a statistical focus, whilst the benchmark module had
a mathematics and statistics focus. The questionnaire had two parts, one concerned
with proŽling the students and the second concerned with assessing attitudes and
perceptions of their module web site.
The questionnaire responses from level two undergraduate students (n = 102)
and the level three benchmark cohort (n = 61) were obtained at the 10-week point
of a 15-week semester module.
In addition to the above general questionnaire, the student learning styles, for
both cohorts, were assessed using a series of questions developed by Kolb and
McCarthy; see Kolb (1984).

4. Results
Extracts of Žndings for the research methods module and a further benchmark
module are available in tables 1–3.
Level two students were neutral concerning their allocation of study time to the
module (neither too much nor too little), however, interestingly, they felt that the
web site acted as a replacement for teaching. It was interesting as there was no
reduction in lecture/tutorial contact.
No differences were observed in student perceptions of their computing skills
with frequency of use of the site and also the usefulness of the site. It was also
observed that there were no differences in perception of allocation of time to the
module with accessibility of information and also the amount of guidance given. In
addition, it was observed that there were no differences in perception of the clarity
of information on the sites with the necessity of information given.
A further test established an association between gender and future increases in
web site interaction.
A series of generic questions was presented to both the study cohort and the level
three benchmark cohort (n = 163), see table 2. There was a perceived difference in
the frequency of use for cohorts studied (level two students using the site more
frequently). For both the study cohort and benchmark cohort, differences were
observed in student perceptions of frequency of use of the site with gender, age
groups, computing skills and degree mean mark. The opinions on possible increases
in web site interaction also differed when tested with degree mean mark.
Results for the observations concerning student learning styles for the level two
study cohort (n = 102), see table 3, indicated that the learning styles exhibited by the
 Digital learning and teaching 111

Question Statistical Hypothesis supported/ SigniŽcance

test outcome of test level
Allocation of time for Mean response Mean = 3 (neutral) NA
module
Web site as a teaching Mean response Mean = 2 (acted as replacement) NA
method
Differences between t-test Null (H o)—no difference p > 0.05
computing skills of
student and their
perception of web site
usefulness
Accessibility of web site t-test Null (H o)—no difference p > 0.05
information by allocation
of time to module
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014

Amount of guidance given t-test Null (H o)—no difference p > 0.05

on web site by allocation
of time to module
Necessity of information t-test Null (H o)—no difference p > 0.05
on web site by clarity
of the information
Frequency of use of the t-test Alternative (H1)—is a difference p < 0.05
web site set against
computing skills of user
Feelings concerning future Chi-square test Alternative (H 1)—is association p < 0.05
increases in web site
interaction by gender
Table 1. Extract of analysis undertaken on Research Methods module (n = 102).

Question Statistical Hypothesis supported/ SigniŽcance

test outcome of test level
Frequency of use of the web t-test Alternative (H1)—is a difference p < 0.05
site based on course
studied
Frequency of use of web site t-test Alternative (H1)—is a difference p < 0.05
by gender
Frequency of use of web t-test Alternative (H1)—is a difference p < 0.05
site by age
Frequency of use of web site t-test Alternative (H1)—is a difference p < 0.05
by computing skills
Frequency of use of web site t-test Alternative (H1)—is a difference p < 0.05
by current degree
mean mark
Opinion on increase in web site t-test Alternative (H1)—is a difference p < 0.05
interaction by current
degree mean mark
Table 2. Generic questions presented to students on Research Methods module and
benchmark module (n = 163).

students were independent of their opinions on whether the web sites enhanced
current teaching, whether the web sites will eventually replace current teaching
methods, the interest and challenge they feel is given by the module of study and
their views on the appropriateness of the way the module is taught.
 112 B. McClelland

Question Statistical Hypothesis supported/ SigniŽcance

test outcome of test level
Difference in the mean level t-test Null (Ho)—no difference p > 0.05
of enjoyment of the module
and gender
Likelihood of recommendation t-test Null (Ho)—no difference p > 0.05
of module and perceived
quality
Perceived quality of web site t-test Null (Ho)—no difference p > 0.05
and information contained
on the site
Learning styles of students Chi-square test Null (Ho)—no association p > 0.05
and their opinions on the
web sites enhancement to
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014

current teaching
Learning styles of students Chi-square test Null (Ho)—no association p > 0.05
and their opinion that the
internet will eventually
replace current teaching
methods
Learning styles of students Chi-square test Null (Ho)—no association p > 0.05
and the interest and
challenge they feel is
given by the module
Learning styles of students Chi-square test Null (Ho)—no association p > 0.05
and their views on the
appropriateness of the
way the module is taught
Frequency of visits to the Chi-square test Null (Ho)—no association p > 0.05
web site against the
perceived quality of the
web site
Frequency of visits to the Chi-square test Null (Ho)—no association p > 0.05
web site against the
perceived level of
information given on
the web site
Frequency of visits to the Chi-square test Null (Ho)—no association p > 0.05
web site by students
against problems
experienced using or
accessing the site
Frequency of student visits Chi-square test Alternative (H1)—is association p < 0.05
to the web site and level
of enjoyment of studying
module
Table 3. Learning styles for Research Methods module (n = 102).

In addition to the observations on student learning styles it was also observed

that there was no difference in the level of enjoyment of the module when tested
against gender. The frequency of visits to the site by students was seen to be inde-
pendent of the perceived quality of the site, perceived level of information given on
the site and problems experienced using or accessing the site, see table 3. A depen-
dence was, however, observed between the frequency of use of the web site and level
of enjoyment in studying the module.
 Digital learning and teaching 113

If one considers engineering students, inherent problems in assessment have

been identiŽed recently by Vos (2000). These were concerned with: knowledge and
facts; skills or competencies; mastering the learning process; and group work assess-
ment. Two main goals for mathematical education for engineers have also recently
been highlighted by Bringslid (1999), which are training for logical abstract thinking
and to use mathematics in Želds other than mathematics itself. Also, the impact of
information technologies in improving the quality of teaching in introductory engi-
neering statistics courses has been examined, with an emphasis on evaluating
student learning performance and teaching performance (Aparicio Acosta 2000,
McNaught 1999). This latter work has taken on board the principles of reducing
student frustrations, increasing practical content and the necessary activity of the
evaluation of students and teaching. The majority of the web site supports used in
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014

this study enable exibility for both students and tutors, avoiding restrictions such
as time, place and accessibility of knowledge supports. To a large extent use of
generic web sites such as that proposed here address many of the issues raised in the
above investigations.

5. Current and future developments

Extensions of this study will ultimately allow learning strategy to be related to
student learning styles and approaches to study. Further studies, surrounding use of
the sites, could examine the match of cognitive styles to the web-based support, as
attempted by Boles et al. (1999) for electrical engineering students. The emphases
in studying this system are appropriateness for students in terms of pedagogy, issues
surrounding quality of content and presentation, skill development, technology Žt
for students, appeal of web-supported learning to students and exibility as a
complementary delivery platform. These attributes complement a similar set put
forward by Baillie and Percoco (2000) on the usefulness of computer-based learning
in engineering education.
With respect to the savings in terms of cost, the Research Methods module under
study has resulted in savings of £4000 on photocopying handouts, for one module in
one semester, and staff administration time commitments. As well as this, students
perceived an increase in quality of teaching and availability of resources. Based
upon feedback from students and staff observation to date, there have also been
increases in perceived quality of learning materials and learning opportunities for
students.
These initiatives present exciting possibilities for the further developments of
digital teaching and learning support environments, as well as administrative
supports; see McClelland (2000). The complimentary positive feedback from
students, and from research on the effects of the modules on the student learning
experience, coupled with the above developments, augers well for the future impact
and development of this digital educational approach, supporting the concept of the
e-University. Currently, JMU has many web-based projects with more than 30
module web sites, designed to the same template, and several programme web sites
at postgraduate and undergraduate level, which are both distance and in-house.
Access for all sites is possible through School homepages, for example see URL
http://cwis.livjm.ac.uk/bus. Students can access programme support web sites,
navigate to their study level and then to their module(s) of study as a series of
smooth transitions. Alternatively, they can proceed directly to their modules with
 114 B. McClelland

knowledge of the URL. This provides for a trouble-free unconstrained access to

learning. Students can also interact with a tutor, and each other, via e-mail and
message boards. The approach therefore places the student at the centre of the
learning domain. A study of the cybernetic and evolutionary nature of the student
learning coupled with an exploration of student attitudes and perceptions to this tech-
nology has been undertaken for several similarly supported modules in JMU. Linked
to this, two further studies surrounding learning strategies adopted by students have
been undertaken, McClelland (2000) and McClelland and Laws (2001).
Studies surrounding the impact and effectiveness of these particular digital
teaching and learning supports is ongoing and now being extended to Masters level
programmes (see McClelland 2001).
Future development possibilities revolve around the efŽcacy of commercially
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014

available software that could support student learning resources on the web.
Software includes products such as WebCT and Blackboard. Current research at
JMU is focused on evaluating these platforms against already proven templates
designed in-house.

References
APARICIO ACOSTA, F. M., 2000, Hints for the improvement of quality teaching in introduc-
tory engineering statistics courses. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25,
266–267.
BAILLIE , C. and PERCOCO, G., 2000, A study of present use and usefulness of computer-based
learning at a technical university. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25,
34–42.
BOLES, W. W., HITENDRA, P. and RAJ , L., 1999, Matching cognitive styles to computer-based
instruction: an approach for enhanced learning in electrical engineering. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 24, 371–383.
BOOT, R. L. and HODGSON, V. E., 1990, Open learning: meaning and experience. In HODGSON,
V. E., MANN , S. J. and SNELL, R. S. (eds), Beyond Distance Teaching—Towards Open
Learning (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
BRINGSLID, O., 1999, Multimedia books in the mathematical education of engineers.
European Journal of Engineering Education, 24, 189.
JOHN, V., 2000, Engineering education—Žnding the centre or ‘back to the future’. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 25, 216–224.
KOLB, D. A., 1974, Organisational Psychology: An Experiential Approach (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall).
KOLB, D. A., 1984, Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Develop-
ment (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
LAWS, J., 1998, Course content and distribution. Web-based Learning Seminar, LJMU, 27
April.
MCCLELLAND, R. J., 2000, Campus Wide Information Systems: An Integration Development
for H.E. United Kingdom Academy of Information Systems, UKAIS 2000 Conference,
Cardiff, 26–28 April (New York: McGraw-Hill).
MCCLELLAND, R. J., 2001, Web-based delivery of a generic research methods module (for
social sciences): the graduate and post-graduate experience. Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education 12th International Conference, Orlando, 5–10
March.
MCCLELLAND, R. J. and LAWS, J., 2001, Use of the World Wide Web to promote effective
learning. Working Paper, Liverpool Business School
MCCLELLAND, R. J. and YOLLES, M. I., 1997, The cybernetics of learning environments cti-
afm. 8th Annual Conference, Cardiff, 8 April.
MCNAUGHT, C., 1999, Evaluation strategies for developing and using effective computer-
facilitated learning environments in science and engineering. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 24, 32.
 Digital learning and teaching 115

SPARKES, J. J., 1999, Learning-centred teaching. European Journal of Engineering Education,

24, 188.
VOS, H., 2000, How to assess for improvement of learning. European Journal of Engineering
Education, 25, 230–232.
http: //cwis.livjm.ac.uk/bus/busrmccl/ae2030
http: //cwis.livjm.ac.uk/bus

About the author

Bob McClelland has worked in the UK Higher Education sector for 27 years. Initially a
Chemist, he has lectured in Analytical Biomedical Science at undergraduate and postgradu-
ate level. For the past 12 years he has lectured in Research Methods, Statistics, Decision
Making, Management and Market Research to undergraduates, postgraduates (MA, MBA
and Executive MBA), academic staff and on professional courses at Liverpool John Moores
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 19:54 30 December 2014

University. A Fellow of the UK’s Royal Statistical Society, he is currently Reader in

Educational Technology and Head of the Market Research Technologies Group at Liverpool
JMU. Throughout the 1990s Bob has been a visiting Professor on three occasions to SEGES
(a university in Rome) as part of an Open and Distance Learning Degree, to Ostrava
University on several occassions (in the Czech Republic) and to three separate universities
(in Bulgaria). He is also an advocate of problem-based learning approaches developed by the
Educational Innovation Network for Economics and Business (EDINEB), an international
network centred in Limburg University, Maastricht. His current research is concerned with
the impact of technology, developing educational technologies and the internet. In recent
years he has held a university Teaching Fellowship, researching learning styles and strategies.