Introduction
This report presents the findings of the Progression Project survey of first year students’ views on alternative channels for module-level communication.
It has been produced in partial fulfillment of one of the author’s six CPR objectives for the current year.
Context
The first year progression project is a module that contains limited structured class contact with students. As a result, there are fewer opportunities than usual to use the physical space to reinforce the objectives of the module or to ensure that students stay on track. The module leader experimented with several virtual communication channels to overcome this potential weakness.
A Facebook group was established for Computing 09/10 students at the start of the academic year. 83 students joined this group. All announcements made by the module leader were placed on xstream and sent to this group. Students initiated some of the one-to-one communication with the module leader using this group. Unexpectedly, one of the group postings made by a student provided the basis for two refreshed lectures, one on the first year Systems Modelling and the other on the final year Innovation and Enterprise.
A short series of Youtube videos were produced to introduce the module. The first of these was made available on Easter Sunday, allowing the module to start several weeks before its opening physical session. (Video one – 197 views; video two – 198 views). In addition two interviews were filmed with returning placement students and made available to the group in an attempt to encourage first year students to consider the benefits of placements. (Video one – 208 views; video two – 316 views).
Finally, two audio files were recorded at significant stages in the project to ensure students were briefed on the progress expected at that point in the module.
Findings
How often do they access the communication channels preferred by the university?
62% of the sample look at xstream most days, with 20% accessing it every day.
51% of the sample access their university account most days, with a further 20% looking at their university account on a weekly basis.
By comparison, 91% of the sample use Facebook most days.
Contacting students
Students were asked what they felt was the quickest way to contact them. Eighteen felt the university email was the quickest method; 18 chose Facebook; 14 chose their personal email and 11 were of the opinion that their mobile phone was the quickest means for contacting them. (Note that many students chose two or more of the options).
Students were also asked what was their preferred means of contact. Once again, some students chose several options. The preferences were as follows: university email (21); Facebook (12); personal email (14) and mobile phone (7).
Engagement with the additional communication channels set up for the Progression Project
76% of the sample joined the Facebook group set up for first year students. Of those who tried this method of communicating, only one did not feel that this was a good idea. In addition, half of those who did not join the group also felt it was worthwhile. 65% of the sample would interested in other modules contacting them using facebook groups, with 1% disagreeing with this suggestion. Of those who took part in the group, there was only one student who disagreed with the proposal that other modules should use facebook groups as a way of communicating with students.
Engagement with the Youtube videos and audio messages
40% of the sample watched all of the videos and a further 38% watched at least one of them. These were released via the Facebook group and xstream. To listen to the audio files, the students needed to log into xstream first. A similar percentage listened to both of the audio messages (42%) but fewer listened to at least one (27%). 46% of the sample agreed that the audio files helped keep them on track with module and 51% expressed no opinion about this. Of those who listened to both of the audio files, all but two of them agreed that the files had been worthwhile. The twelve students who listened to one audio file were less enthusiastic. Five of these agreed that the files had been beneficial, six had no opinion and one disagreed with the suggestion that the files had been useful.
(It was also planned to evaluate the usefulness of the videos to students. This was omitted from the research instrument due to researcher error).
Should social networking sites be used for academic purposes?
The views of the sample were divided on this issue, with similar numbers expressing positive and negative views. 38% of the sample felt that academic work should only be posted to xstream. 37% felt that social networking sites should be used for academic engagement. The remaining 25% expressed no opinion on this matter. Those who took part in the Facebook experiment had a more positive view, with 50% more of them being in favour of the use of social networking sites by module teams. The students who had watched one or more Youtube video were more likely to have a positive opinion of the use of social networking sites, with a 36% increase in positive views when compared to the total sample.
Conclusions
Firstly, this survey has provided the opportunity to assess whether the university email account remains the ‘best’ way to contact students. In recent years, various alternatives have been tried out (e.g. texting to mobile phones, phoning students on mobiles, visiting students’ term-time addresses). This study illustrates that the multiple channels that are available. Although the university email remains the single most popular choice, the majority of students prefer other methods. However, it is interesting that contact by mobile phone is the least preferred of the four options presented. It would also appear that students are divided in their views about which channel is the quickest way to make contact.
Secondly, this study supports tutors’ anecdotal evidence regarding students’ interest in Facebook. All of this sample are Facebook users, with 91% of them using the site every day for social interaction. This contrasts with the situation two years ago when 67% were regular users (Griffin, 2009). Almost all of the students who took part in the trial of Facebook within the module felt this was a good idea. Furthermore 65% of the sample, including those who did not participate on this occasion, would like other modules to adopt this means of communication. This does not necessarily mean they would prefer it to replace xstream for all academic purposes.
Thirdly, there is some evidence that using Youtube videos and audio messages helped students to maintain progress on the module. The Progression Project is the first module they experience in which the students manage their own engagement and decide which tasks they carry out. Approximately, 70% of the sample watched some of the videos and listened to at least one audio message. Further investigation is required to explore how effective this particular communication is from both the students’ and tutors’ perspectives.
Finally, the limitations of this study need to be recognized. It is a small-scale sample with a limited set of issues considered. A larger study, perhaps using a mixture of methods, might provide greater insight. This study merely considers the views of one party in module communication: the student. It ignores the experience of the tutors involved. Furthermore, this was action research. The researcher was not an independent observer. This may have influenced some of the responses made by students.
Recommendations
- This was an initial study. The results are interesting but highlight areas in which a deeper investigation is required. It is recommended that the study is repeated next year on the Progression Project. If funding and time permits, it could be expanded to include some qualitative research in the form of focus groups or interviews with students.
- The author would be particularly interested to collaborate with one of the Computing teacher fellows to develop this study into a REF output for the Subject Group next year.
- The Subject Group might wish to consider whether some of these social networking tools might be used to provide additional support and guidance in other modules with limited physical delivery such as Work-Based Learning and Supervised Work Experience.
David Griffin
30 June 2010
Reference
Griffin D (2009) University 2.0: Embracing Social Networking to Better Engage the Facebook-generation in University Life in S Murugesan, The Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0 and X.0., IGI Global
