Pat Yo U N G

Conceptions of early leaving: a comparison of the views of teaching staff and students

Keywords: attrition, conceptions, nurse education, reasons for leaving, retention, students, teaching staff

A B S T R AC T Recent synthesizing work on the student retention literature suggests two divergent discourses. The first is a discourse of assimilation which locates the problem in individual students' circumstances or abilities.This is challenged by an emerging discourse of adaptation. The new discourse focuses on higher education itself, proposing fundamental changes to adapt universities to a new purpose in a changed society. Here we present findings from interviews with teaching staff, which formed part of a multimethod investigation into attrition. Drawing on Zepke and Leach's (2005) model, we contrast the conceptions of early leaving suggested in these interviews with our previously reported findings from interviews with students who had considered leaving but stayed, and students who had withdrawn. We find staff more likely than students to externalize attrition in terms which problematize students. Students were more likely to focus on issues relating to their experiences of the university.

Introduction

Retention of students is an issue across higher education. The desire to widen participation has resulted in significant growth in student numbers, but also higher levels of attrition across the sector. Retention is therefore an issue of increasing concern to higher education institutions and the focus for much research and development activity.

This article draws on findings from a multi-method research project on student retention in the Faculty of Health and Social Care at the University of the West of England, Bristol. The project was funded by the local Workforce Development Confederation and aimed to inform strategic institutional change to improve retention. The data collection focused on the pre-registration course in adult nursing, which is the largest programme in the faculty, with relatively high rates of attrition. The full project report for the university and the Workforce Development Confederation [START_REF] Young | Improving Student Retention: A Case Study Examining the Pre-registration Adult Nursing Programmes in the Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England[END_REF] includes a package of 47 recommendations which are currently being discussed and implemented. Implemented in full, these recommendations would result in fundamental changes in the culture and structure of provision within the faculty. In this article we present the views of the teaching staff and discuss these in relation to the contrasting views of attrition suggested by the interviews with current and former students [START_REF] Glogowska | Should I Go or Should I Stay? A Study of Factors Influencing Students' Decisions on Early Leaving[END_REF]. The views of staff are particularly important, as effective implementation of the package of recommendations relies on commitment from all staff to a process of holistic and fundamental change in the culture of higher education.

Changing conceptions of student attrition and retention

Concerns over retention have led to the growth of a literature seeking to understand the problem of attrition, and to propose or evaluate strategies for improving retention.Within this literature, there are tensions in the conceptualization of the relationship between individual and institutional factors. In a recent systematic review of research on retention, [START_REF] Zepke | Integration and Adaptation: Approaches to the Student Retention and Achievement Puzzle[END_REF] suggest there are two approaches to the issue: one which looks at assimilation -fitting students into the institution; and a newer approach which looks at adaptation -where institutions change to accommodate diverse student needs. Adaptation involves practical and cultural issues. On a practical level, students are no longer studying full-time: the majority are employed whilst studying, and many have family and other commitments. Zepke and Leach suggest that institutions need to change how they manage the undergraduate experience to enable students to remain connected to their lives outside the university. Students also arrive with particular cultural capital. This is: 'a symbolic rather than material resource that includes, for example, informal interpersonal skills, habits, manners, linguistics, educational credentials, lifestyle preferences, conceptual knowledge, particular speech patterns and culturally specific learning tools ' (2005: 53). When the students' cultural capital is valued and fits with the institution they are 'fish in water'; when cultural practices are deemed inappropriate, incongruent, deficient or invalidated, students are more likely to experience acculturative stress and consider dropping out.

There has been a tendency to move away from the approaches which locate the problem in individual students' circumstances or abilities and towards an approach which argues for more fundamental adaptation of higher education to a new function and purpose in a changed society. This shift in focus was noted at a recent conference on student retention (Student Retention, Progression and Social Inclusion, Bath Spa University, September 2006) where papers, mostly from academics working in specialist roles to improve retention or researching retention demonstrated an emerging consensus, emphasizing adaptation rather than assimilation.There is little evidence, however, to suggest that the developments in thinking represented in the literature reflect, or have impacted on, the views of ground-level teaching staff. In a paper which draws on two research studies with staff and students to compare views on factors to improve retention in the context of widening participation, [START_REF] Thomas | Supporting Students to Succeed in Higher Education: Contrasting Staff and Student Views[END_REF] finds that staff are more likely to draw on a deficit model of the diverse student populations newly entering higher education as a result of widening participation. This model 'positions students as lacking and in need of change to fit into and succeed in a largely unchanged higher education system ' (2006: 117).Where Thomas tends to limit her argument to 'nontraditional students ' (2006: 118), previous research with Social Policy lecturers, carried out by one of the present authors, found this deficit view expressed by staff more generally [START_REF] Irving | When Less is More: The Dominance of Subject-content in the Teaching of Undergraduate Social Policy[END_REF].

There have been previous studies which have focused on students who have left without completing their course [START_REF] Davies | Dropping Out: A Study of Early Leavers from Higher Education[END_REF][START_REF] Thomas | Student Retention in Higher Education: The Role of Institutional Habitas[END_REF][START_REF] Yorke | Leaving Early: Undergraduate Non-completion in Higher Education[END_REF] and other studies which have included data from continuing students (for example, [START_REF] Christie | Leaving University Early: Exploring the Differences between Continuing and Non-continuing Students[END_REF][START_REF] Trotter | Student Retention: An Exploration of the Issues Prevalent on a Healthcare Degree Programme with Mainly Mature Students[END_REF] as well as studies which have looked at staff (for example, [START_REF] Layer | Student Success: Building for Change[END_REF]. Our research is, we believe, unique in providing interview data from teaching staff, students who thought of leaving but stayed, and students who had withdrawn, from a single programme. We are able to make comparisons between the three perspectives.

Methods

The research project combined quantitative and qualitative methods of primary data collection and analysis. The data sources for the whole project are summarized in Table 1 below, with the data sources selected for this article indicated in bold type.The quantitative data provided evidence from large numbers of students whilst the qualitative sources provided means for a deeper exploration of the views and experiences of smaller numbers of students and staff, enabling richer forms of data to be presented. Successful applications were made to the Faculty Research Ethics Committee for each part of the data collection process. All participants received detailed information sheets about the project which stated their rights to refuse to participate and to withdraw at any stage in the proceedings. At the beginning of the face-to-face interviews the interviewees signed consent forms: consent for the telephone interviews was recorded.

This article focuses on explanations of attrition derived from the interviews with teaching staff and compares these with data from the interviews with current and former students.The sampling frame used to select staff for interview included all staff teaching on the pre-registration adult nursing programme, except those on secondment or very new to the job. Staff selected for interview included all those who, in addition to teaching, have roles of personal tutor or programme leaders; and a randomly selected sample of other staff teaching on the programme. The interviews were semi-structured and sought to understand staff perceptions of the nature of the issue of attrition and the use of preventative procedures to improve retention. The interviews also collected feedback on the various aspects of the programme and suggestions for improvements.The interviews were recorded and notes written up by the interviewer.These notes have been collated and summarized.

The sampling process for current students began with a questionnaire issued to second year students. The purpose of the questionnaire was to identify students who had considered leaving the university and to seek permission to contact students to arrange an interview. 184 questionnaires were returned and interviews were then arranged with 30 students who stated on the questionnaire that they had at some point considered leaving the programme. The interviews were semi-structured and sought to understand the factors which are significant to students in decisions to remain on their programme.The interviews were recorded on audio-tape and full transcripts made. The transcripts were thematically analysed using computer software (NVivo). In their recent and authoritative report on working class 'drop-out', [START_REF] Quinn | From Life Crisis to Lifelong Learning: Rethinking Working-class "Drop-out" from Higher Education[END_REF] report on the methodological problems encountered by researchers seeking to understand early withdrawal, and the resulting low response rates. In our project, the university's student database was used to identify an initial sample of students who had chosen to withdraw from adult nursing courses. Letters were sent out to 81 former students explaining the project, detailing the questions to be asked and guaranteeing confidentiality. A form and a pre-paid envelope were provided to permit students to refuse their permission to be contacted by telephone.

278

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N 8(3)
Attempts were made to contact the students over a two-month period in the summer of 2005. 204 telephone calls were made, resulting in 19 completed interviews. Permission was sought to tape-record the interviews and respondents were assured that they could ask for any part of the interview not to be taped or for the conversation to be terminated at any point. None did so and all interviews were completed at the first attempt.The tapes were transcribed and have been thematically analysed.

Findings from interviews with teaching staff

The findings from the interviews with teaching staff present a picture of staff conceptions of attrition and understandings of students' reasons for early withdrawal.These data were provided in response to two areas of questioning: the first seeking to explore conceptions of retention and the second asking about students' reasons for leaving.

Conceptions of attrition

The interviewees were asked if they saw retention as a problem. In only three cases did the answer come in the form of an outright 'No'. 'Yes' answers were, however, qualified in a number of ways. A number of staff acknowledged that retention is a problem for the organization because of the financial implications of the contracting process, but not for students or nursing. For example:

Yes but only from a financial point of view for the University, I don't think it's a problem for nursing and I don't think it's a problem for students. It's a problem in terms of the contract process.

Attrition, although recognized, is seen by some as part of the selection process for nursing, ridding the profession of people unsuitable for nursing or not able to meet the demands of the course. Eleven out of the 30 respondents expressed this view, represented below by the interviewee who suggests:

Any programme leading to a professional role -is part of the selection process of the professional group. So the idea of trying to keep people who blatantly shouldn't be kept, that have made a decision that this job isn't for them, seems to be fool-hearted.

Generally staff were inclined to see the level of attrition as inevitable in terms of the demands of the job, availability of other careers, and the quality of students accepted on to the course. Many of the interviewees expressed a belief that students leave for reasons beyond control of the university.

Linked to the conception of attrition as a result of factors relating to students rather than to factors internal to the university, the interviews suggested that many staff do not believe that anything can be done which will make a difference. For example: I don't think there's any issues around attrition that have happened to my personal tutor group that I could have had any influence over whatsoever. All of them that were leaving came to see me and I asked them was there anything that they thought I could help them with, was there anything I could do to change their mind? But in all situations, they had all made up their minds and they were all leaving for the right reasons as far as I could see.

This position is however contradicted, to some extent at least, by responses in the later part of the interview which suggested that staff could identify a number of difficulties in the programme and ways in which students could be better supported and have an improved experience (see [START_REF] Young | Improving Student Retention: A Case Study Examining the Pre-registration Adult Nursing Programmes in the Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England[END_REF].

The teaching staff were asked for their understandings of the reasons for students leaving the nursing programme. Their responses are collated in Table 2. Most interviewees gave more than one reason, and again many stressed the complex and multi-faceted nature of the issue. Responses can be summarized into the following categories:

• students' wrong choice of course; • pressures on students: personal and home lives; finance; health; • the demands of the course; and • placement issues.

Seventeen of the interviewees included a reference to students making a wrong choice of career or having unrealistic expectations of nursing or nurse education. Some of these poor decisions were attributed to the university's selection procedures which take unsuitable students; some to the influence of media, for example television programmes which tend to over-dramatize nursing, and under-play the care of chronic elderly patients. Some students have got an unrealistic expectation of what nursing is all about, and that may be for a variety of reasons but I do think sometimes that the media has a part to play in that and so when they hit practice, the kind of hard work aspect of it is something they've completely under-estimated.They're not doing the kind of high drama ER experience. They're dealing with perhaps challenging people, people that are not easy to deal with, in some instances older people who they find difficult, particularly for the younger students.

Three further responses included a reference to the undesirable nature of the job or the levels of accountability required of nurses. Four suggest the NHS itself is the problem with aspects such as the hierarchical structure not appealing to contemporary young people.

The most frequent kinds of response placed the emphasis on factors relating to students. This emphasis is summed up in the following quotation:

The vast majority -90% -leave because of personal reasons and some leave because nursing is not for them.

Sixteen interviewees refer to financial problems, for example:

For a lot of people the problem is simply finance. They just can't cope on the amount of money they are getting … and I've got to put finance at the top … I see finance as absolutely key… Five interviewees referred to pressures of working to earn extra money; ten to family issues and caring commitments; seven to personal difficulties, five to homesickness and six to health problems. Eight refer more generally Reasons linked to the university are mentioned less commonly: four interviewees suggest the programme is too large to meet students' needs; five that the demands of the course in terms of level, volume and timing of work causes problems; one refers to the curriculum of the first year which is not appropriate to the entry levels of the students.

281 YO U N G E T A L . : E A R LY L E AV I N G
The pattern is complicated.There is a wide range of academic abilities for which the curriculum doesn't allow. There is pressure from the start. It seems inappropriate to expect people who are new to health care to take on an IP module and write extensive essays. So the reasons are academic expectations combined with course design and the inappropriateness of the first year content.

Five responses refer to the lack of support offered by the university. Timetabling issues are mentioned by two interviewees and academic grounds by six respondents

Placements are mentioned by eight interviewees. Issues relating to placements include the length of the placements and difficulties of bullying of students by staff within placements; lack of support within placements; the need to juggle academic work with full-time placements; and problems relating to travel.

Comparing staff and student conceptions of attrition

Here we discuss the findings described above from the interviews with 30 teaching staff in relation to the data we collected from interviews with 30 students currently studying in the second year of the pre-registration programme, and 19 interviews with students who left the programme [START_REF] Glogowska | Should I Go or Should I Stay? A Study of Factors Influencing Students' Decisions on Early Leaving[END_REF]. Whilst there are common features across the data, we argue that there are significant and important differences, which need to be recognized and explored by staff in HEIs as a starting point for new policies and practice to improve retention.

Conceptions of attrition

We described above how 11 out of the 30 teaching staff interviewed provided a response which suggested a view of attrition as functional in terms of selection for nursing, weeding out students not suitable for nursing. This view was not borne out by the evidence provided from our interviews with students who had left the programme. Most strikingly, a significant proportion of the students were currently studying on health courses (4 out of 19) or hoping to return to studying on a nursing or health care course in the future (7 respondents). Eight out of 19 were still working in the health and social care sector. This data also challenges the view expressed by 17 staff respondents which suggested students drop out because they have made the wrong choice of career. Obviously we did not interview all students who left and recognize that staff views may be correct in some cases.

The findings from the students who remained on the programme also challenge the staff perspective on students who leave.The questionnaires to the second year cohort found that a majority of students (55.3%) had considered leaving at some point; and the interviews with the two groups of students found more similarities than differences between the students. We would not want to argue that all attrition is undesirable from the point of view of the nursing profession, but our findings suggest that at least some students who leave constitute a loss to the nursing profession.

Students' reasons for leaving

We have suggested above that teaching staff tend to explain students' decisions to leave in terms of factors that locate the problem with the individual students. Although teaching staff were able to identify problematic aspects of the programme and to make suggestions for improvements, these were not offered in response to the question on students' reasons for leaving or, when mentioned, not linked directly to reasons why students might leave. When we compare this with the explanations offered by the students who left the programme, summarized in Table 3 below, we find two significant differences.

Although there is clearly some degree of overlap, there is a significant difference in the balance of types of explanations offered. Students are more likely to identify factors relating to their experience of university education on the programme, in comparison with factors which relate to personal issues or circumstances. For example, 13 students mentioned insufficient support, whereas this was not mentioned at all by staff as a response to the question about students leaving. (When asked directly about student support however, many of the staff identified this as an area where provision was patchy or did not always meet students' needs.) Similarly, six student respondents referred to a lack of guidance from staff on coursework: whereas this was not an issue referred to by staff in this context. The interviews with the students who thought about leaving and stayed also demonstrated this different balance of explanations with key reasons for thinking of leaving being academic work (identified by 9 students) and lack of support (identified by 8 students).

A more subtle difference lies in the different perspectives on the same issue. For example, if we look at the issue of the mismatch between expectations of the course and the realities of the student experience, we can see differences in the language and perspectives of the students and the staff. The teaching staff tend to describe this issue in terms of students making a poor and illinformed decision, resulting in them ending up on the wrong course. Again this leaves little for the university to change, except in terms of seeking to steer such students away by the provision of better information. Students however are less likely to talk of themselves as having made the wrong choice, but 284 to refer to the course as not meeting their expectations.The focus is shifted from the individual student to the provision. Many of the factors offered by staff that locate the issue with individual students can be turned around to locate the issue within higher education itself. We can see students as lacking in the abilities needed for success in higher education: or we can see higher education as failing to support students in developing the abilities needed. Or, more radically, we can suggest that higher education is presuming and demanding abilities which are not appropriate to its new function as a mass provider.

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N 8(3)

Conclusion and recommendations for further research

Our analysis found teaching staff more likely than students to explain attrition in terms which problematize students. These views are reflective of the early literature, which also tended to locate attrition in factors relating to individual students' choices, circumstances or abilities. Students, on the other hand, were more likely to focus on issues relating to their experiences of the university or their placements. The differences we found in staff and student perspectives are important insofar as staff views are likely to be a more powerful factor in influencing policy development and affecting the ground level change which most affects students.The student voice is less powerful. [START_REF] Thomas | Supporting Students to Succeed in Higher Education: Contrasting Staff and Student Views[END_REF] draws on work which sees schools as teachers' worlds in which children are temporary guests to argue more widely that policy and practice tends to be based on the assumptions of those with greater power. She suggests that students in higher education are not able to shape and change the student experience to meet their needs but must survive (or not) in a system constructed by and for others.

Thomas argues that research insights drawn from comparison of staff and student views make possible the 'triple loop learning' which 'permits insight into the nature of paradigm itself' [START_REF] Isaacs | Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking and Organisational Learning[END_REF], quoted in Thomas, 2006: 121). By highlighting the differences in conceptions of staff we hope to encourage a move away from approaches which seek to remedy perceived deficits in student, for example through provision of student support services or skills tutors, towards the more fundamentally transformative relational and pedagogic changes sought by students.

The emphasis of staff on factors internal to students is more likely to lead to a fatalistic pessimism about the prospects of improvement. Many of the issues identified by students, such as the lack of support generally and lack of guidance on assignments, are conceivably within the power of the university to improve and provide grounds for optimism about change. Where students do leave for reasons which the university cannot address, our findings indicate a significant number continue with their studies elsewhere or hope to resume their education in the future.This suggests a need for the adoption of more altruistic institutional strategies which support transfer within the wider sector It is important to stress that it has not been our intention in this article to simply shift the blame from students to teaching staff. We are as critical as [START_REF] Quinn | From Life Crisis to Lifelong Learning: Rethinking Working-class "Drop-out" from Higher Education[END_REF] of a culture of blame and failure that encourages defensiveness, and a reluctance to openly examine and discuss our practice, or to seek to understand the points of view of others. As individuals, most academic staff put enormous effort and energy into trying to support students. The different perspectives of staff and students are understandable, and to some extent inevitable, in the contexts of the differing experiences and motivations of the two groups, and the different worlds they inhabit.

Our findings are limited insofar as they are derived from research into a single programme within one institution. It would be useful for this study to be followed up with a comparison between two or more universities and a range of disciplines. There is a tendency for health and social care provision to be separated from the mainstream, as a result of the different funding streams and particularities in student populations and programme provision. It would be helpful to more fully understand and map the areas of commonality in students' experiences, as well as the differences. In providing a comparison between three sets of data within the confines of a short article, we have not sub-divided our samples in terms of variables such as gender, age, social class, ethnicity or dimensions of personal experience. Particularly in the case of the data relating to the teaching staff, such deeper analysis would undoubtedly lead to interesting findings, differentiating between staff and provide more subtle layers of understanding of staff attitudes to students' early withdrawal.

Table 1 Summary of data sources

 1

	Student database	SPSS analysis	7092 student
			records -2765
			adult nursing
			students
	Teaching staff	Face-to-face interviews	30 interviews
	Students on the programme	Questionnaires	184 questionnaires
	Students on the programme	Face-to-face interviews	30 interviews
	Support services staff	Face-to-face interviews	13 interviews
	Students

who have withdrawn Telephone interviews 19 interviews

Table 2 The views of teaching staff on students' reasons for leaving

 2

	Reasons for students leaving	Respondents
	Mismatch between	Wrong choice of career/	17
	expectations and	unrealistic expectations
	experience of the course	of nursing or nurse
		education
	Pressures on students	Financial problems	16
		Pressures of working	5
		Family issues/caring	10
		commitments
		Personal difficulties	7
		Homesickness	5
		Health problems	6
		Complex lives generally	8
	Demands of the course	Size of programme	4
		Demands of course	6
		Academic work	6
		Lack of support	5
	Placement issues	Placements

Table 3 Factors reported by students who had withdrawn as contributing to their decision to leave

 3

	Reasons for leaving	Respondents
	Mismatch between	Disappointment over	7
	expectations and	content of course
	experience of the course	curriculum
	Pressures on students	Transport difficulties -	10
		both attending university
		and on placement
		Separation from	4
		boyfriend/friends/
		family members
		Difficulties within family	5
		such as illness,
		bereavement,
		arranging childcare
		Financial strain	14
		Pregnancy	1
	Demands of the course	The academic nature of	4
		the course
		The 'leap' from previous	8
		study experience into
		diploma/degree work
		A perceived lack of clear	6
		guidance/support about
		what was expected in
		coursework and/or
		little feedback on
		return of coursework
		Experience of failure in	3
		coursework
		Perceived lack of	3
		organization of
		lectures and tutorials
		Insufficient support	13
	Placement issues	Experiences on placement

Biographical notes

PAT YOUNG is a senior lecturer in Educational Research in the Faculty of Health and Social Care at the University of the West of England. She has 20 years' experience of teaching Sociology and Social Policy in further and higher education and has worked in the Higher Education Academy subject centre for Social Policy and Social Work (SWAP). She has published textbooks to support learning in social policy and her current research interests are in teaching and learning in higher education. Address: Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England, Blackberry Hill, Bristol BS16 1DD, UK. [email: Pat2.young@uwe.ac.uk] MARGARET GLOGOWSKA is a senior lecturer in Research Methods in Health Care in the Faculty of Health and Social Care at the University of the West of England. A speech and language therapist, she has been a researcher in the field of early childhood language impairment for 11 years and has published papers, a book and book chapters in that area. Her current research interests include teaching and learning in higher education, as well as issues in health care such as professionals' attitudes toward the use of IT. Address: Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England, Blackberry Hill, Bristol BS16 1DD, UK. [email: Margaret2.glogowska@uwe.ac.uk] LESLEY LOCKYER is a senior lecturer in Research in the Faculty of Health and Social Care at the University of the West of England, Bristol. Lesley teaches across a number of research methods and evidence based practice modules. Her research interests span women's health and the sociology of work and professions. Address: Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England, Blackberry Hill, Bristol BS16 1DD, UK. [email: Lesley.Lockyer@uwe.ac.uk]


N E I L S E Lw Y N

An investigation of differences in undergraduates' academic use of the internet

Keywords: gender differences, ICT, infor mation searching, inter net, subject differences, underg raduate

A B S T R AC T Based on survey data from 1222 undergraduate students studying at UK higher education institutions, this article addresses students' engagement with the internet as a source of academic information for their studies. In particular the article explores how academic use of the internet is patterned by a range of potential influences such as students' wider internet use, access and expertise, their year of study, gender, age, ethnic and educational background. Analysis of these data suggests that students' academic internet use is most strongly patterned along the lines of gender and subject-specialism rather than other individual characteristics or differences in technology access or expertise. The article therefore considers how these differences can be addressed by those seeking to encourage ICT-based learning across all sectors of the undergraduate population.

Introduction

There has been growing enthusiasm over the past decade for the integral role the internet can play within higher education -not least as a means of providing students with ready access to educational opportunities [START_REF] Murphy | Online Learning and Teaching with Technology[END_REF][START_REF] Ryan | The Virtual University:The Internet and Resource-based Learning[END_REF]. In particular, universities have positioned the internet as a ready means of delivering subject content and providing students with access to the information required for their studies [START_REF] Eynon | The Use of the Internet in Higher Education[END_REF]. Higher education institutions continue to devote substantial resources to providing students with access to internet-based information via e-journals, virtual learning environments (VLEs) and other forms of 'e-learning' provision. Most universities now boast high-spec internet connectivity in classrooms, libraries, student accommodation and other public campus areas. Similarly, most degree programmes contain an information literacy component where students are trained to effectively search and critically evaluate internet-based information.

All of these efforts are predicated upon an assumption that university students -as young, well-educated and well-resourced individuals -are inherently inclined towards using the internet as a source of information within their day-to-day lives and, it follows, disposed towards academic use of the internet. Indeed, present cohorts of undergraduate students are seen to be drawn from the first generation of 'digital natives' who grew up with the internet [START_REF] Prensky | Listen to the Natives[END_REF] and, therefore, are completely comfortable with (and perhaps sometimes overly-reliant on) using online sources to meet their information needs [START_REF] Jones | The Internet Goes to College[END_REF][START_REF] Mcmillan | Coming of Age with the Internet[END_REF][START_REF] Weiler | Information-seeking Behaviour in Generation Y Students[END_REF].

Yet whilst the use of new technologies is an increasingly prominent element of many young people's lives, there is a growing sense amongst some academics that this re-orientation of higher education has perhaps been predicated on little more than assumptions about the likely 'educational effectiveness' of the internet and its supposed universal appeal to students. As Broad et al. (2004: 137) observe, much of the motivation behind the integration of the internet into higher education over the past decade has been driven by 'internal political pressures' on universities and academic departments rather than by sound educational rationales. From this background, it could be argued that there is a need to gain more detailed understandings of the realities of internet use in university teaching and learning in order to more successfully integrate the internet into university education [START_REF] Selwyn | e-learning or she-learning? Exploring Students' Gendered Perceptions of Educational Technology[END_REF].

Literature review

As with all areas of education and technology, there is a burgeoning literature on higher education and the use of information and communications technology (ICT). As befits the forward-looking nature of the field of education technology, most of this literature tends to be concerned with the potential of the worldwide web and other internet applications to accelerate university students' learning and knowledge-building, enhance and democratize access to educational resources and support interactivity, interaction and collaboration. Small-scale case studies and evaluations of best-practice encompass the use of ICT across all stages of university education, from students' use of online induction programmes for incoming students to online question banks, and the use of online chat forums (for example, [START_REF] Johnston | Textbook Publishers' Website Objective Question Banks?[END_REF][START_REF] Kirkpatrick | Online "Chat" Facilities as Pedagogic Tools[END_REF][START_REF] Laing | Managing the Transition into Higher Education[END_REF].

Yet beyond these evaluations of good practice, empirical studies of university students' actual in situ uses of the internet as a source of academic information are surprisingly few (in contrast to the well-mapped internet use of students in compulsory school settings). Most of the studies that have been conducted over the past decade into students' everyday use of ICT at university have tended to be subject specific, as evinced in recent studies into ICT use amongst students studying subjects such as dental education, accounting and business studies and computer science [START_REF] Marriott | Accounting Undergraduates' Changing Use of ICT and their Views on Using the Internet in Higher Education[END_REF][START_REF] Usun | Educational Uses of the Internet in the World and Turkey: A Comparative Review[END_REF][START_REF] Walmsley | The Use of the Internet within a Dental School[END_REF]. Although limited in their scope, these studies have reported, for example, that whilst all students and staff have university-based access to computers and internet, students' academic use of the internet is heavily entwined with leisure uses, and tends to be curtailed by issues of cost and time, as well as relevance to specific curricular and course assessment requirements.

Studies by [START_REF] Breen | The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in a University Learning Environment[END_REF] and [START_REF] Brotcorne | Making Sense of the Internet: Exploring Students' Use of Internet-based Information Resources in University[END_REF] have looked at students' computer and internet adoption from a university-wide perspective. Both of these studies found computer use to be a major element of the student's working day, but [START_REF] Breen | The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in a University Learning Environment[END_REF] reported that students were sometimes discouraged from using ICT when in university due to access limitations and the cost of personal ownership of equipment. [START_REF] Brotcorne | Making Sense of the Internet: Exploring Students' Use of Internet-based Information Resources in University[END_REF] qualitative study of Belgian undergraduates found internet use to often clash with (rather than complement) students' progress through the rigid systems of assessment, grading and academic conventions which constitute university life. This led [START_REF] Brotcorne | Making Sense of the Internet: Exploring Students' Use of Internet-based Information Resources in University[END_REF] to conclude that students' use or non-use of the internet for their studies was not always due to a disadvantage per se but 'more due to matters of "digital choice" rather than "digital divide"'.

Indeed, upon closer inspection many of these previous studies actually convey a sense that not all students are as inclined to integrate internet use into their studies as might be assumed. As is usually the case in educational debate, blame for this disparity has been most frequently attributed to deficits of skills, motivation and know-how on the part of students, faculty and/or the educational institutions themselves. For example, some researchers have reasoned that university students' (non)engagement with the internet is influenced by perceptions of usefulness, ease-of-use and other psychological attitudes towards both technology and learning (for example, [START_REF] Cheung | Proposing a Framework to Assess Internet Usage in University Education[END_REF][START_REF] Hong | Students' Attitudes Toward the Use of the Internet for Learning: A Study at a University in Malaysia[END_REF][START_REF] Joiner | Internet Identification and Future Internet Use[END_REF]. Following on from Breen's observation, differences in the quality of internet access have also been identified as a likely divide among students, most notably in terms of differences between 'public' and 'private' locations of use [START_REF] Hassania | Locating Digital Divides at Home, Work, and Everywhere Else[END_REF]. Similarly, institutional and faculty support and resourcing have also been raised as potentially inhibiting or facilitating factors [START_REF] Eynon | The Use of the Internet in Higher Education[END_REF].

Whilst useful, this body of literature has been less concerned with any potential wider social patterning of internet (non)use. This short-coming in the present research base contrasts with suggestions from recent North American work which suggests that social as well as technical issues merit serious consideration in the context of university students' (non)engagement with online academic information (Cotton and Jelenewicz, 2006). Here, it is suggested that even within a population of college students, divisions may well be found in students' internet along the lines of gender, race, educational background and/or technological experience.

Thus at present, whilst there is much enthusiasm being directed towards the integration of internet-based information in UK higher education there is little empirical mapping of students' use (and indeed non-use) of the internet -in particular how internet use may be patterned across different groups of students. In considering the potential factors which may correspond with differences in use, further confirmation is therefore required of the role of variables such as subject discipline and educational background, as well as individual factors such as gender, age and ethnic group, as well as issues of technological access and know-how. In short, research needs to provide a more holistic view of students' actual use of the internet in their studies, as opposed to what they could or should be doing.

With this in the mind the remainder of this article examines recent data from undergraduate students studying in UK higher education institutions and briefly considers the following questions:

• how does undergraduates' engagement with the internet for academic information correspond with their wider use of the internet? • how does the level and nature of internet use for academic information compare between different groups of undergraduates? • what do these patterns suggest for the encouragement of students' further academic use of the internet?

Research methods

These research questions are addressed through analysis of self-report questionnaire data collected from a stratified sample of undergraduate students at UK universities during the 2006/7 academic year. A brief twopage questionnaire was developed to include questions on respondents' general use of the internet for a range of domestic, leisure and educational purposes as well as their demographic and education backgrounds.

Questionnaires were administered to 1222 respondents who were all fulltime undergraduate students at higher education institutions in the UK. The majority of students were studying at a large 'old' civic university in the UK (Cardiff University, n ϭ 1080), with a sub-sample of students from 24 'old' and 'new' UK higher education institutions included for purposes of establishing generalizability (n ϭ 142). Analysis of data revealed no statistically significant differences between the Cardiff and non-Cardiff sub-samples, leading them being analysed together throughout this article.

In terms of sample characteristics, 57 per cent (n ϭ 690) of the sample were female, 89 per cent (n ϭ 1079) classed themselves as 'white British' and 99 per cent (n ϭ 1207) were classified 'home' (as opposed to EU or international) students. Ages of respondents ranged from 17 to 50 years (mean age 19.0 years, SD ϭ 1.8 years) and in terms of pre-university educational background respondents' A-level scores (where applicable) ranged between AAA to E (median score ABB). Respondents were studying a range of subject disciplines which were categorized as follows: 30 per cent studying social studies; humanities (for example, mass communications and documentation, languages, historical and philosophical studies) 20 per cent; business and administrative studies 11 per cent; medicine (for example, medicine and dentistry/veterinary science/subjects allied to medicine) 10 per cent; law 9 per cent; natural sciences (for example, biological sciences/physical sciences) 8 per cent; computer sciences/mathematical sciences 4 per cent; engineering and technology 4 per cent; architecture, building and planning 3 per cent; and creative arts and design being studied by 2 per cent of the sample.The sample should therefore be seen as skewed towards students with strong educational backgrounds, and those studying social studies and humanities subjects.That said, the sample can be considered to be generally representative of the overall UK student population in terms of gender and ethnic background when compared to recent data from the Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA, 2006).

Given the non-probability nature of our sample and the relatively simple questions of patterning which we wished to derive from the data, it was our contention that the questionnaire data were best analysed in a relatively straightforward manner. Gorard (2001: xv) argues that one of the key methodological reasons underlying the recent high-profile challenging of the quality and relevance of educational research has been the 'over-use of statistical tests, inappropriate use of statistical tests, confusion between levels of measurement, confusion between design error and random variation'. With this in mind, for the purposes of this article the data have therefore been analysed in a relatively straightforward manner. Thus analysis of the questionnaire data is described in terms of frequencies, crosstabulations and, where appropriate, bi-variate tests of statistical difference and association.

Results

All but two per cent of the sample reported having used the internet to look for information relating to their university studies/assignments during the past 12 months, with 50 per cent of students reporting having done so on a 'frequent' basis (that is, 'all the time'). In this respect, academic information was the highest ranked type of frequent information search that the internet was used for when compared to searching for information about consumer goods and services, news/current affairs or leisure/interests/hobbies. Moreover, using the internet for searching for academic-related information was a more prevalent use than online activities such as e-banking, e-gaming, e-shopping, downloading and participating in online courses or lessons. That said, using the internet for educational information was ranked lower than communicative and social software uses of the internet, with significantly higher proportions of students reporting frequent use of the internet for email, chat-room and social-software applications such as blogging, myspace and similar packages. In this respect, academic-related information searching was 16 a prominent, but not predominant, aspect of undergraduates' everyday engagement with the internet.

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N 9(1)
In terms of how academic information searching was patterned according to students' levels of general internet usage, some notable patterns were apparent between different groups of students (Table 2). For example, those students who rated themselves as 'expert', 'very competent' or 'fairly competent' internet users were more likely to report looking for information about university studies/assignments than the small number of their peers who rated themselves to be 'novices' -although this difference was not found to be statistically significant ( 2 ϭ 2.21, df ϭ 1, n/s). A significant difference was found in terms of the context of internet access -with those respondents enjoying 'private' access to their own computer more likely to report looking for information about university studies/assignments than the ten per cent of the student population who were restricted to accessing the internet in shared university settings such as computer rooms or libraries ( 2 ϭ 25.97, df ϭ 1, p Ͻ 0.001).

In terms of how academic information searching was patterned according to students' background characteristics, some notable differences between students were also apparent (see Table 3). For example, female students were significantly more likely than male students to report looking for information about university studies/assignments ( 2 ϭ 25.27, df ϭ 1, p Ͻ 0.001). Conversely -and just as importantly -no significant differences were discernable in terms of students' ethnic background, age, year of study or educational background in terms of A-level grades. Perhaps the most notable differences were in terms of subject discipline. Here, there was a distinct pattern of students from medicine and social studies backgrounds being more likely than their counterparts in architecture/planning and creative arts to report looking for information about university studies/assignments ( 2 ϭ 38.77, df ϭ 1, p Ͻ 0.001).

17 S E LW Y N : U N D E R G R A D UAT E U S E O F T H E I N T E R N E T

Discussion

Although these data are brief and leave many questions un-addressed about students' subsequent use of online information in their studies, they do suggest that the undergraduate body of students at UK higher education institutions is a generally internet-rich population, with academic information searching forming a prominent part of their general online engagement. As such the traditionally reported barriers to student internet use (that is, deficiencies in terms of access, skill and know-how) appear to be steadily diminishing. All students in this study reported having access and making regular use of the internet, with the vast majority happy to report themselves as being competent if not expert users of the internet. That said, there were a minority of students whose academic use of the internet still appeared to be compromised either by their reliance on shared, public access points (ten per cent of respondents) or by a lack of competence and/or confidence (the one per cent of self-reported 'novices'). Both these groups were found to be substantially less likely to be making frequent use of the internet for academic information and, as such, still require specific attention and support from university authorities as a distinct minority group of requiring specific support and attention. Thus these students' needs should not be overlooked amidst future moves to cater for the majority of competent and confident internet-using students.

The needs of these students notwithstanding, the data presented in this article could be seen to reflect the maturing of internet use in higher education -both in terms of the 'mainstreaming' of students' use of the internet as a source of academic information, and in terms of the maturing of the issues and problems behind this widespread use. Indeed, it would appear that any 'barriers' still underlying differences in students' internet use run deeper than physical or technical issues of resourcing and skill. It is here that university authorities can therefore look to re-appraise their practice in terms of encouraging of students' further academic use of the internet. In particular, whilst no significant differences were apparent in academic information searching by students' age, year of study, ethnic or educational background, consistent differences were apparent in terms of students' gender and subject of study. These would therefore appear to be two salient issues which require attention from university authorities and faculty in the near future.

With regard to gender differences, our data found female students to be significantly more likely to make use of the internet for academic information seeking than their male counterparts.This finding runs counter to much of the research literature during the 1980s and 1990s which highlighted men's dominance of education technology (for example, [START_REF] Sutton | Equity and Computers in the Schools: A Decade of Research[END_REF]. Indeed, now it is assumed that gender differences in internet usage and engagement have all but disappeared [START_REF] Mossberger | Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide[END_REF], and that any differences which do remain are in terms of female reticence. Our data suggest otherwise, and point to the need for universities to begin to explore distinct ways of making online learning and internet-based information attractive to male students.

Similarly, another form of online divide which demands renewed attention are the differences in subject discipline reflected in our data -with students from medicine, social studies, law and business all reporting higher levels of educational internet use than their counterparts in creative arts, architecture/planning and the humanities. Therefore addressing these 'subject-based' barriers is likely to require a different set of responses from university authorities -based less around resourcing internet access and ensuring the development of internet skills amongst students, and more around developing students' understandings of how technology fits into the material they are studying and the nature of learning in generalregardless of subject specialism. In particular, subject departments and teaching associations could be encouraged to further consider how online information sources can be made to better 'fit' with the demands and nature of the different subject areas.

Future research

Of course, this brief article has been limited in its focus on the 'front-end' of students' use of the internet for education information. In focusing on the differences in students' levels of engagement with the internet for educational purposes, we have not examined the nature, quality or effectiveness of this engagement. Nor have we questioned how online resources and sources fit alongside students' offline information seeking.Therefore it is clear that students' actual uses and non-uses of the internet during their higher education studies merit a sustained and far-reaching programme of future research.

One of the key issues for any future research would be to explore what forms of information students obtain from the internet and, most importantly, how students use such information once they have retrieved it. In particular more in-depth qualitative research should be carried out with students to understand how ICTs and the internet 'fit' with the everyday 'student experience' and, in particular, how gendered and subject specific uses of the internet may develop (see [START_REF] Mcmillan | Coming of Age with the Internet[END_REF]. Similarly, research should be conducted along more longitudinal lines than the 'snap-shot' nature of the present data set. Repeated collection of data from cohorts of students as they progress through their undergraduate studies would provide a rich and detailed picture of the factors underlying their take-up of ICT-based resources. We hope that the present study has been able to provide a starting point for such investigation.

Table 1 Students' self-reported use of the internet

 1

	All the Some Hardly Never
	time	times	ever

Table 2 Percentage of students self-reporting instances of academic informa- tion searching during the previous 12 months by internet use characteristics

 2

	Frequently look for
	information about
	university studies/
	assignments

Table 3 Percentage of students self-reporting instances of academic information searching during the previous 12 months by background characteristics

 3

	Frequently look for
	information about
	university
	studies/assignments

Data are percentage of all respondents (n ϭ 1222)

Data are percentage of all respondents (n ϭ 1222) * Significant difference at the p Ͻ 0.001 level using X 2 test

Biographical notes

NEIL SELWYN is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Education, University of London, where he is part of the London Knowledge Lab. His research focuses on information technology and society -in particular the place of technology in everyday life and the sociology of educational technology. Recent publications include Adult Learning in a Digital Age (Routledge) and Telling Tales on Technology (Ashgate). Address: London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23-29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK. [n.selwyn@ioe.ac.uk]


Editorial

LY N N E P. B A L DW I N Brunel University, UK As discussed in the previous Editorial, computer-based learning (CBL) is these days neither novel nor new; it is instead standard, normal. It would be very unusual indeed if there exists a department or institution which does not use technology to assist its learners in their learning. How much technology, and how it is used, varies enormously but whether we are keen advocates or not, learners of today are very much part of a generation in which technology plays a key role in all areas of their lives, as evidenced by the ubiquity of mobile phones (in particular, their use for texting) amongst others. Our students expect us to use the available technology, and there is surprise, and complaint, when we do not.

As Neil Selwyn, author of the first article,'An investigation of differences in undergraduates' academic use of the internet' neatly sums up for us, we: continue to devote substantial resources to providing students with access to internet-based information via e-journals, virtual learning environments (VLEs) and other forms of 'e-learning' provision. Most universities now boast high-spec internet connectivity in classrooms, libraries, student accommodation and other public campus areas (Selwyn, 2008: 11-12) and we all train our students to 'effectively search and critically evaluate internet-based information' (Selwyn, 2008: 12). The term 'digital native' is used in the article, and elegantly sums up our students today, that is, those 'who grew up with the internet … and … are completely comfortable with (and perhaps sometimes overly-reliant on) using online sources to meet their information needs' (Selwyn, 2008: 12). Much literature in this area is still stuck in the past, unfortunately, and seeks to discuss whether or not the internet or any other technology is 'good' or 'bad'.The time has long passed when this was relevant, if it ever was (technology exists; whether it is 'good' or 'bad' depends on how it is used). Neil Selwyn is absolutely correct when he says that we believe that the use of such technology helps our learners in their learning but that what is lacking is the hard data about 'students' actual use of the internet in their studies, as opposed to what they could or should be doing'. Results from the study described in the article reveal a population of learners who consider themselves competent users, although a small percentage lacked the skills, the confidence or the physical access and thus did not use the internet as frequently. As the author concludes, this minority of learners require targeted support from us, particularly if we are to rely more heavily on such technology for the delivery of material and/ or support of learning. The findings shed light on gender differences; the results are not what we have long thought to be the case. Age, year of study, ethnic or educational background and discipline are other factors explored in this study, and there are useful pointers from this which tell us which of these need our further attention if we are to best assist our learners in using the internet for academic purposes.

If, as Neil Selwyn says, we are becoming more reliant on technology for the delivery of material and/or support of learning (and this is uncontested), then as with all learning environments we need to assess their impact on our learners and their learning. The use of technology is central in what is known as 'blended learning'; the topic of the second article, 'Using radar charts with qualitative evaluation: techniques to assess change in blended learning', by Dan Kaczynski, Leigh Wood and Ansie Harding from the University of West Florida, USA, Macquarie University, Australia and the University of Pretoria, South Africa. The authors define blended learning as 'a mixture of online and face-to-face content delivery using a variety of learning resources and communication options [and which] mixes e-learning with other more traditional types of learning' (Kaczynski et al., 2008: 24). Outlining its benefits, the authors rightly say that whatever the delivery, we must always be guided by how best to help our learners to meet the learning outcomes that we require of them. The authors argue, however, that our reasons for introducing blended learning are not always clear to us, but that even if they are, we need to have in place something which allows us to compare one environment with another and a means by which to evaluate them. Radar charts, say the authors, have been found to be useful in the field of organizational development in order to measure quality, and they argue that this is likely to be the case in determining quality in the learning environment too. The article describes in greater detail the variables involved in radar charts, their large number of possible uses and how, practically speaking, we might harness their benefits. The study described used a six-zone radar chart to evaluate blended learning in a particular learning environment over a lengthy period of time, and in three different countries, namely, Australia, South Africa and the USA.The authors make the very valid point that 'if we wish to convince our colleagues, students, and ourselves of the worth of [any] teaching innovation' (Kaczynski et al., 2008: 37), we are helped in this endeavour if we have the tools, and the subsequent data, to support our claims. Their study revealed the student perspective, in this case about the strength of feeling towards online resources and the perceived negative effect of this on their learning. The authors conclude that the use of radar charts is one tool for the more effective evaluation of both qualitative and quantitative data. This, the authors argue, is even more important these days given that we are investing more and more into learning environments supported by technology. Cautioning that we might perhaps be seduced into adding more and more to the technology-assisted learning environment, the authors rightly say that not only do the 'extras' cost more in financial terms but that adding more and more in terms of content/material hinders, not helps, our students in their learning. As with all things in life, the authors rightly say that it is all a matter of balance, and that the use of radar charts can help us find the most appropriate one taking into account the varying, competing demands of all stakeholders involved in the learning environment created and used.

The role that we, as educators, play in the learning environment that we create is complex. As the authors of the third article, 'A workshop activity to demonstrate that approaches to learning are influenced by the teaching and learning environment' say, student learning is intrinsically bound up with the learning environment created; the relationship is relational. In this article, David Kember, Doris Y. P. Leung and Carmel McNaught from the Chinese University of Hong Kong provide an overview of the theories and approaches to learning and teaching, drawing heavily on the 'surface' and 'deep' notion that has for some time influenced our thinking and practices. Whilst there has been a recent shift towards viewing this more as a continuum rather than two discrete approaches, the authors argue that this is often confused with cognitive styles. In contrast to cognitive styles, the approach that a student takes to their learning may be adapted in order to take account of what they perceive is required of them, or in response to the learning environment in which they find themselves. Whether for a more experienced teacher or for someone new to teaching, the authors rightly argue that we need to understand the relationship between approaches to learning and the learning environment and how this in turn impacts on the learning approach(es) that our learners adopt. Our conceptions of teaching, which are central, are bound up with these, and the authors neatly illustrate this with a model which links the factors involved in how students approach their learning. Arguing that we need more evidence as to how the teaching approaches that we choose to use impact on the learning approaches of our learners, the study described in the article sheds light on the relational nature of these and also the role that the discipline might play. The workshop activity described is, say the authors, replicable and useful in our own teaching contexts.

How students themselves monitor/evaluate their own learning is the subject of the fourth article, by Jackie Haigh. Entitled 'Integrating progress files into the academic process: a review of case studies', the article informs us that higher education institutions in the UK must now have in place opportunities for what is termed 'personal development planning' (PDP). Citing a recent study, the author reports that the first element (of two) is now pretty much standard in the sector, that is, that students are now routinely issued with a transcript/progress report.That there were (or are) institutions which did/do not do so is difficult (for me) to believe, but for those who share my concern we should console ourselves with the fact that, at last, students in the UK now have this most basic of written documentation given to them. Let us hope that, with the technological advances available to us, students in the UK do not have to queue/stand in line in order to collect these documents! Less successful, says the author, is how 'PDP' itself has been implemented, or not. In the early days there was much confusion about the 'progress file' element of this, and what it actually meant, in practice. For some, it meant that students had to gather a portfolio of evidence about their learning, and present it, perhaps to be assigned a mark. Others saw is as personal, only for the eyes of the student, as a kind of reflective log/account. The article updates us on how far we, in the UK, have implemented the 'progress file' element of PDP, setting this against the backdrop of the historical and political climate and examining the concept of self-regulated learning underpinning the policy. Reviewing published case studies on the issue, it seems that three types of progress files have emerged, and that these differences reflect the different concepts and orientations that we have. For those who argue that such progress files have benefits for our learners, both within and beyond the time that students are studying at the institution, the author is right in saying that this needs to be embedded into our academic practices, and the article describes how this has been achieved.

The earlier article, by David Kember and colleagues, discusses 'surface' and 'deep' approaches to learning, both of which help us to think about what approaches to learning are 'good' and which, therefore, must be 'less good'. What makes 'high-quality' learning, and thus a 'high-quality learner' is the subject of the fifth and final article. Entitled 'Are students using the 'wrong' style of learning? A multicultural scrutiny for helping teachers to appreciate differences', Carolina Valiente explains that a 'high-quality learner' is normally defined as learner who has a great deal of self motivation and who uses an analytical approach to both glean and act on knowledge.This is, however, very much a 'Socratic' view of a learner, says the author, arguing that approaches other than this should not be dismissed as 'inferior'. As the author says, the learning styles and approaches taken by learners is affected by their previous experiences and the context in which that learning took place, and for some, that 'cultural framework' might include 'memorization, external motivation, passiveness and collaborative learning', all of which we, in the West, often view as 'inferior' (Valiente, 2008: 73). Memorization is, after all, usually to be found listed in the 'surface' approach, and thus 'not good'. The article offers a measured discussion of these four traits, and how they impact on communication and learning styles. The need to look at this vital aspect is evident. For home students the transition is difficult enough but for students from other countries and cultures that adjustment is all the more challenging.The arguments put forward here echo that of the previous articles, namely, that the context in which we operate, whether at work or at home, affects how we learn. Amongst the factors that play their role are, says the author, religion, ideology and social patterns, and it is these that we need to take into account in order to understand the behaviour of both students and teachers in the learning process. In order to discuss this, the author refers to students from the Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC), as well as others.

In more elegant words than expressed here, the author says that forcing students to take part in what we think are 'good' activities, such as 'experiential learning events' may not be the kind of learning previously experienced by learners from cultural backgrounds different from ours in the West. Rather than expecting the students to change to our way of looking at the world (in this case, of learning), thus 'correcting others' cultures and behaviour, either by imposing or transposing on them "generally accepted" Western standards', we would do well to keep at the forefront our minds that 'the referred literature on cultural diversity suggests that there is no intrinsic "superiority" of any learning or management model or culture. Each style offers advantages and disadvantages to its users depending on the circumstances they encounter' (Valiente, 2008: 87).We, as educators, have much to learn about other cultures, and if we are teaching those from other countries and cultures, 'understanding the dynamic of cross-cultural relationships and helping international learners to design their own stages of cultural integration or acculturation ' is key (2008: 87). The author says that this 'may require the education of teachers, students and institutions on a variety of cultural and internationalization issues ' (2008: 87). My view is not that it 'may' but instead that it will require such education, as few of us are well informed, or sufficiently so, of the 'theoretical and practical implications of the internationalization of HE'. I could not agree more that any 'preparation should also recognize particular cultural commonalities, the empathy that could emerge through associations between specific groups, and the possibility of creating a culturally adjusted behaviour that matches the standards of the academic institutions in the Western system ' (2008: 87). We, in the West (for we dominate the literature in the field), would do well to take on board the message of this article, namely, that 'there is not a "right", single and clear way to learn that may apply to everybody and all circumstances'.

E D I T O R I A L


Lynne P Baldwin

de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Editorial

LY N N E P. B A L DW I N Brunel University, UK

The 'traditional' learning environment has until recent years been the classroom. The advent of computing technology has led us to think beyond the four walls and, quite literally, to think 'outside the box' as to how we, as educators, can assist our learners, whether face-to-face or not. Space, and the creation and use of it in order to foster and/or improve our communication both with our learners and between ourselves, is a core theme which links the articles which comprise this issue.

There has been an increase in the number of institutional repositories in institutions across the world, although the majority of these repositories are devoted to research output, say Melanie King et al., authors of 'Analysis of academic attitudes and existing processes to inform the design of teaching and learning material depositories: a user-centred approach', the first article in this issue. Arguing that repositories for teaching material are less common, their study identifies existing practice(s) in how these are created and used, and demonstrates that there is confusion about how a repository is different from a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). As they rightly say, if we share our resources and expertise, this may not only give us access to material but also potentially improve our own teaching practices. Such repositories are usually Open Access (OA), they say, in contrast to a VLE, where access is limited or authenticated to particular groups.Their study reveals that which is likely common in the sector, in the UK at least, namely, that all educators used their university's VLE in order to make available to students the teaching materials that they had prepared. Not all, however, did this without the help or support of administrative and/or technical staff, and there were differing views on their creation of material and how they carried out the task. A significant majority of educators expressed the view that they would like to make better use of the technology at their disposal but that they lacked the skills and/or time to do so. The article shows the different stages of the teaching material workflow and the different levels of communication, support and technology needed at each. As is likely the case in other institutions too, it seems that we rely far more on informal rather than formal methods for communicating and sharing, and that the 'network' is not limited to merely those teaching in the classroom. Their study provides some detailed and helpful guidance by way of presenting some scenarios as to how, for example, an institutional teaching repository would inter-work with existing institutional systems, the benefit of repositories inter-working with existing applications, and the amount and kind of support needed in order to share materials with others. Concluding that we have an opportunity to put into a repository materials that are not necessarily suitable for a VLE or another institutional system, the authors offer up the intriguing area for possible future research, namely, how (or whether) national and institutional repositories might fit together, including the social mechanisms we would need for sharing materials.

Echoing the theme of different learning environments, Tim Montgomery, author of the second article, entitled 'Space matters: experiences of managing static formal learning spaces', argues that our seminar rooms are far more than mere walls and furniture, and that seminar space is contingent. We, as educators, work in spaces that have long remained unchanged yet, argues the author, we need to better understand it as the management of space and movement impacts our learners' construction of meaning and the dynamic of learning itself. Whether or not we work in a higher education context in which there are different learning goals and expectations, and thus a need for a different learning environments, the author posits that we are being urged to move away from our everyday experience, that is, one which is characterized as not being high-tech and which does not have impressively designed formal and informal spaces. This article looks at the realities of learning space and why space matters. As the literature cited in the article rightly says, space is not static, absolute or devoid of effects or implications; it is inextricably linked with social relations which have in themselves an integral dynamism. Three dimensions are discussed. One, the group (of students and tutor), which is a social organization that has, and creates, its own meanings.Two, the movements within the space, as these partly underlie those interactions and are also socially constructed sources of meaning. Three, the space itself. Space, says the literature, is negotiated, and is not value-neutral; it is about position, geographically, temporally, and politically. For us, as educators, this impacts our understandings of ourselves and our learners, and the dynamic nature of this relationship affects how topics are treated and how the process of learning occurs. The author reports that there is a growing consensus that there should be a harmony of space and learning; not easy if, as the author notes, we are currently working with our learners in static, 'undesirable' learning spaces. This fascinating and often overlooked aspect of learning makes for interesting reading.

The relationship between educators and learners is also the topic of the third article.Vital to any new relationship is how it begins, as this is where 100 expectations can quickly turn to disappointment if these are not realized. In their article entitled 'Fostering approachability and classroom participation during the first day of class: evidence for a reciprocal interview activity', Anthony D. Hermann and David A. Foster, from Willamette University, Oregon and Western Oregon University, respectively, look at the engaging and engagement (or not) of students who are just beginning their studies at university. Saying that although there may be some discipline-specific activities which comprise what happens on day one, the authors say that, regardless of discipline, much of the first or early days are about the fostering of suitably positive interpersonal relationships between educators and learners. However, the authors cite evidence that suggests that learners perceive the first class to have little impact, as they are, understandably, more concerned with the practicalities of surviving in a new environment. Indeed, our attempts at fostering good rapport and active participation on day one may, they say, serve only to frustrate learners, as this is at odds with what they want and need to do on day one. The article describes an activity, adapted from that used to demonstrate effective communication between employers and employees during an initial employment interview, which may satisfy the goals of both educator and learner equally, regardless of class size. The findings suggest that this activity assists learners in finding out (more) about their preferences, attitudes, and knowledge about the course of study on which they are about to embark and, to the surprise of the authors, leads to a shift of attitude within the space of only an hour or so. Not only have learners responded favourably, they say, but so too have educators, who are given a valuable opportunity to learn more about their learners, and from day one. The activity can be adapted for any classroom, regardless of discipline, and the authors provide us with the tools to try it for ourselves.

Continuing the theme of those learners who are new to higher education, the fourth article, by Isabelle D. Cherney from Creighton University, Omaha, looks at whether or how memory or level of understanding of material introduced at the start of the learners' studies might differ from those later on in their studies. In the article, entitled 'The effects of active learning on students' memories for course content', discussion of the literature entails a focus on theories related to levels of processing, memory, recall and attention, amongst others. As is the case for most of us, the memory of our learners is not as brilliant as we/they would hope, it seems. What learners (and anyone else) recall or remember is in part determined by the medium through which data is first encountered; activities, videos or that which is atypical is more easily 'stored' than, say, the typical 'impoverished' lecture. This raises the issue of what has for some time been the subject of much research in the field of education, namely, learning styles.

Whatever the learning style of an individual learner, our task as educators is made all the more difficult, as the author recognizes, when teaching large classes. 'Large' for some is 'small' to others, but in a class of, say, 600 or so, and teaching those learners new to the university environment and to the discipline, however 'active' we may wish their learning to be, we face particular challenges. In order to find out whether learners' processing differs between various course levels, and how these levels correspond or not to course understanding (as measured by grade attained on assessment), the article reports a study designed to measure the extent to which students remembered certain concepts. Results from the study show that active learning materials were more easily recalled, and this was the case at both introductory and higher levels. The more learners could relate the material directly to their own personal experience, or experiences of those close to them, the better their recall.

Engagement and relationship-building is the subject of the fifth and final article, although this concerns not the relationship between educators and learners but instead our own perceptions of a key aspect of higher education, namely, assessment. In this article, entitled 'Summative and formative assessment: perceptions and realities', Maddalena Taras sought to uncover our perceptions of whether summative assessment is a product or a process, whether self-assessment is a summative or formative type of assessment and whether formative assessment can be used for the purposes of marking/grading. Tensions, says Taras, between formative and summative assessment functions exist, despite these being neither separate nor fixed. Citing literature providing a theory of formative assessment and feedback, Taras argues that there has been no explicit examination of the relationship between formative and summative assessment and that we, the educators, need to better understand this if we are to help our learners in their learning and to assess the results of that learning. Using data collected from 50 lecturers/educators, results show that many were unsure of what is meant by summative, formative and self-assessment and they were similarly unclear when it came to understanding the relationship between these. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, feedback was not perceived as being a distinguishing feature of formative assessment, despite the literature cited claiming that it is a central feature of it. Given that formative assessment is regarded as a 'good thing', it is heartening to see, says the author, that formative assessment was much used, demonstrating their desire to use assessment as a means of supporting their learners' learning. As Taras says, assessment is not only a vital aspect in education but also a complex one, and there is still much that we must do in order to better understand assessment, both formative and summative.

Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) Vol 9(2): 99-102 DOI: 10.1177/1469787408090837 EDITORIAL