Liz Smith, Manager Learning Skills [HREF 1], Student Services [HREF
2], Charles
Sturt University [HREF 3], elsmith@csu.edu.au
Les Burr, Deputy Director, Student
Services [HREF 2], Charles Sturt University [HREF
3], lburr@csu.edu.au, lburr@csu.edu.au
Historically, access to the internet has been seen as a barrier to equitable
participation in higher education, particularly for distance education students.
Research conducted at Charles Sturt University (CSU) has demonstrated that
a willingness of a student to gain online access outweighs traditional demographic
disadvantages.
In 2005, CSU introduced a policy of minimum online access for commencing students.
This policy is the result of more than five years of planning, development
and evaluation, and follows research that indicates, contrary to popular assumptions,
students will overcome hurdles to internet access given the appropriate study
based incentives (Burr & Smith, 2003b).[HREF 4]
The successful implementation of the minimum internet access policy is significant
for several reasons. Firstly, CSU is a large regionally based, multi campus
distance education provider with a diverse student population representative
of all Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) equity cohorts.
Traditionally it is these groups that experience the greatest barriers to online
access. Secondly, CSU is committed to a positive Student Experience. Perhaps
uniquely in a large enterprise system, this policy development and implementation
was characterised by a bottom up, student centred and student driven approach
to meet organisational objectives.
This paper presents an important case study for any organisation involved in
the delivery of online education and support. The results of this policy implementation
are applicable across a broad spectrum of educational settings. Specifically,
the paper reports on the development and implementation of a minimum internet
access policy and outlines strategies put in place to support students, to
identify those ‘at risk’, and to ensure a positive student experience
in relation to online use
Online access is increasingly important to tertiary students. In addition to the possibility of enhancing learning outcomes, online access provides students with access to important administrative and support services, together with delivering organisational efficiencies.
Although a recent survey found that ‘all universities are employing the web to some extent for teaching and learning purposes’ (Bell, Bush, Nicholson, O’Brien & Tran, 2002; p. x), [HREF 5], there are many instances of students working under an “assumed access” paradigm. In this situation an institution assumes that students have internet access without any formal clarification or agreement with the enrolled student. In some instances students are only aware that internet access is required at the time they receive their study materials. This can cause disruption and dysfunction to the student at the time of most stress.
As McCracken (2004) [HREF 6] cautions, ‘virtual students quickly become isolated when they receive inconsistent information, conflicting policies, and limited access to procedures and processes as a result of inadequate and inaccessible programs, fragmented services, and limited technical support.’
As a very large provider of distance education (with over 25,000 distance
students) it was important to CSU that the process for ensuring the active
online participation of all students was planned, considered, and equitable.
CSU has a commitment to students from rural and regional Australia and also
has a high percentage of “first generation to University” students.
Over 50% of CSU’s students fit one or more of the DEST equity groups.
Byrnes and Ellis (2003) support the assumption that socio-economic subclasses
such as economic, cultural and geographic grouping can affect accessibility
issues. They propose that issues such as these have contributed to the slow
up take of specific online enhancements such as web based assessment. It was
within the context of student demographics that the University considered the
issue of student online access. Clearly, no assumptions regarding assumed access
could be made in the absence of further research.
Charles Sturt University is a major distance education provider both within Australia and internationally. Of the 40,000 students, over 25,000 study by distance education. In order to provide students with access to services regardless of the geographic location, CSU developed a number of online services and support structures to facilitate student engagement with the University, and also to maximise efficiency within the organisation.
Student web forums, one of the first large-scale online resources made available at CSU, have been taken up at unexpectedly high rates (Burr and Spennemann, 2004). [HREF 7] Since the introduction of forums, students have been progressively offered the opportunity to utilise many other online services and facilities. Students currently have access to a customisable web portal, my.csu, which enables access to information relating to personal details, academic progress, invoices and other administrative information. Students can also access a free email account, check and pay invoices and complete re-enrolment online assignment submission, online testing and subject support is also accessible via my.csu. The portal also provides access to student services, the library and the ‘eBox’ which is the delivery point for all official University communications (Burr and Smith, 2003a).
In spite of the large scale online development at CSU, online access remained voluntary until quite recently. Although a 1995 Teaching and Technology Plan listed mandatory online access for all students by 1999 as an institutional aim, this did not occur. Among the reasons this objective was not pursued were concerns about a consequential drop in enrolments, together with a macro focus on national equity issues (Burr & Smith, 2003b). [HREF 4]
As a regional university, more than 50% of CSU students are represented in DEST equity categories. Given that it is these same students who have been identified in national literature as the group most at risk of experiencing difficulty in accessing the internet, it was important to ascertain just exactly how many students were accessing the CSU online environment, before any further policy development could occur. (Oliver & Towers, 2000; Bell et al, 2002; Barraket, Payne, Scott & Cameron, 2000; NOIE, 2001). [HREF 8], [HREF 5], [HREF 9], [HREF 10]
While CSU has been an “early adopter” of online technologies,
as stated previously, the use of the online environment was voluntary for distance
education students up until 2005. When the eBox was introduced in 2001 as the
official means of communication between the University and students, distance
education students had the option of “deregistering”. This meant
that they would continue to receive official communications by post. Those
students that chose to deregister represented approximately 2% of the student
population. Of those that deregistered, approximately half visited online on
at least on one occasion throughout the session (predictably most for exam
results) as well as receiving communications via print
Online discussion forums at CSU are an integral part of the CSU online learning
environment. In the main, forums participation remains voluntary. Interestingly
an examination of the forum user population challenged many of the long held
beliefs about the characteristics of online users.
It was found that a slightly higher percentage of females used online forums
compared to the total University population; that students under 20 years of
age and over 60 years of age were over represented in forum participation;
students in the age range 21 – 30 years of age were underrepresented;
and that students in located areas outside of capital cities were over represented
(Burr and Smith 2003b) [HREF 4]. In short, many of the groups traditionally
seen as most at risk of experiencing barriers to online access were actually
over represented in the CSU online environment.
Given the high rates of participation for eBox and the profile of users participating
in online forums, the University could quite confidently move forward with
the introduction of mandatory access to the internet as a condition of enrolment.
In a 2002 paper submitted to CSU Academic Senate it was proposed that ‘the failure to mandate access to an Internet connected computer has left CSU in a difficult and potentially unsustainable position’ (Rebbechi and Smith, 2002) [HREF 11]. Specific problems were associated with: an increased academic workload due to the need to duplicate resources and teaching in dual mode; reluctance of academic staff to implement online enhancements as students without access may be disadvantaged, frustrations of students believing that online environment was not being used to its potential; inability to capitalise on the potential cost saving of online delivery; and the complexity of administrative systems required to support dual mode delivery.
These issues coupled with the results of the user participation research made it timely to revisit the issue of policy in relation to student online access. In December 2002 the CSU Academic Senate established a Working Party to ‘consider and recommend on an online learning strategy for CSU’. (Charles Sturt University, 2003), [HREF 12].
As part of the terms of reference, the Working Party was to consider and recommend on:
‘…the adoption by the University of a policy which presumes online access for learning and teaching for all internal students and for all distance students… and alternative access to learning opportunities and support for students without online access where online learning and teaching becomes integral to a subject’ (Charles Sturt University, 2003). [HREF 12].
The Working Party undertook wide ranging consultation across the university employing a range of strategies including:
• Regular postings to the university online memo board
•
Direct information to all heads of schools and divisions
•
School based meetings with reports back to the Working Party
•
Meetings with Student Associations
•
Open invitation meetings for staff and students
•
Establishment of a web site including a web based forum discussion with staff
and students
Based on this consultation and research from within and from outside the institution, the Working Party recommended that ‘online access becomes mandatory for all enrolling students from 2005’ (Charles Sturt University, 2003), [HREF 12].
It is important to note that the Working Party differentiated between three levels of online access; admin access and support, online support for learning and online learning. In terms of their recommendation, the Working Party defined access minimally. The actual implementation of the policy saw this access further defined to the following information for students:
CSU places great emphasis on services to its students. It is a leader in the provision of online services and, in particular, the use of the internet in the support of teaching, administration and communications with students. The online environment is so integrated into all aspects of student life and the learning experience at CSU that the University now assumes that all on campus and distance education students at CSU will be able to access, for at least one hour per week, an internet connected computer capable of communicating with CSU online systems. (Charles Sturt University, 2004)
Concomitant with the recommendation for mandatory access was a further recommendation that provided a safety net for those students with genuine problems. This recommendation suggested “that where online learning and teach8ng becomes integral to a subject, alternative access to learning opportunities and support for students without online access must be provided to those students for whom, online access is, or has become, even temporarily, impossible” (Charles Sturt University, 2003). [HREF12].
When considering policy development within the university setting, the question of student consultation is often posed. Did you ask the students what they wanted and needed? Were they consulted? and How do you know you are providing an excellent service? are common questions. In fact, similar questions formed the basis of interviews during recent AUQA audits.
In this case, students were not only provided with multiple avenues of consultation and participation in policy formulation, they were also provided with several years of ‘testing’ in which they provided perhaps the greatest indication of their wants and needs as distance learners. For several years, the students were able to “vote with their feet’ and use the online environment on a voluntary basis. Because online developments proceeded irrespective of user access conditions, students were able to make a subjective choice in the absence of any university imposed conditions. By the time the institution was in a position where they needed to formalise access conditions, the students were already a step ahead. They had made their choice known by way of their unprecedented online uptake on a voluntary basis.
As Pascale (1990) so aptly puts it,
‘…change flourishes in a sandwich. When there is consensus above and pressure below, things happen.’
This was precisely the case with the online access policy and the actions of the students combined with the agreed direction of the staff enabled a clear cut policy to be developed.
The student experience has been paramount in this ongoing exercise, and it is relevant to note the commendations made by AUQA in their 2005 audit, where they highlight the institution’s student centred focus. (AUQA, 2004. p.5) [HREF 13]
On acceptance of the policy recommendation for implementation in 2005, the interim period was used to further investigate the possible reasons for non access in order to identify potential barriers for students. Although the user participation research indicated that in the order of 90% of students access the CSU Online environment in any given month, it was considered important to establish reasons for the remaining 10% students not utilising the online environment. In this way, students experiencing real problems could be assisted, and strategies developed in order to cope with the implementation of the mandatory access policy being introduced in 2005.
The user participation research provided valuable information that formed the basis of a methodology to profile at risk distance education students in the context of visitation to the online environment.
At the beginning of the first session in 2004, a list of students was generated who fell into the following category:
1. Were studying by distance education and
2. Were in their first year of study and
3. Had not studied with CSU previously and
4. Had not accessed the CSU online environment (use of email not included) and
5. Did not reside in a town housing a campus centre i.e. Albury, Bathurst, Goulburn, Dubbo or Wagga
For several years, CSU have employed a student mentor system, whereby senior students are trained to assist new students with their transition to tertiary study. The students mentors were utilised to contact the students deemed “at risk” by not having visited the CSU online environment.
A scripted flow chart was developed and trialled which established phone contact with each “at risk” student. Although the underlying intention was to establish reasons for students not having accessed the online environment and to provide any support that was required to ensure access, the “conversation” was based on a broader context of student support. Any additional concerns or issues raised by the students were logged and followed through by the Student Services Help Desk staff.
The Student Services Help Desk acts as a call centre for enrolled students. However for the purpose of this project, the centre operated in reverse and became a “call out centre”. The Help Desk facilities were given over to the team of student mentors for one night per week over a period of 6 weeks The student mentor team, under the supervision of a senior staff member were provided with access to staff phones and computers, where calls could be made and issues logged immediately into the Help Desk system tracking system.
Profiling “at risk” students resulted in the identification of approximately 500 students who had not visited the CSU online environment since their enrolment. Over the six week period, commencing in the first session of 2004, telephone contact was attempted with all students in the at risk group.
Approximately one third of the students could not be contacted. Of those contacted, a variety of reasons were offered for not accessing online. Many students were considering withdrawing from their studies due to changes in their circumstances but had yet to notify the University. Some students were experiencing problems with user names and passwords. However, very few students (less than 10) reported difficulty in accessing an internet capable computer.
In a number of cases (approximately 30), students reported that they had in fact visited online. This may be due to a number of factors; visitation may have occurred during the time gap between data preparation and contacting the student, the student may have not wished to admit that they had not visited online or (and the most likely explanation) that the students had confused visiting online with visiting the CSU public web site.
This student support initiative provided results that once again challenged
some of the traditional assumptions regarding student online access. The general
response from students was far more akin to ‘the dog ate my access’ with
students reporting reasons such as they had forgotten, hadn’t gotten
around to it, hadn’t bought the new computer I was planning to yet and
the like.
These results were heartening in that they supported the decision to move
towards a minimum access requirement, and demonstrated further that it is
willingness rather than ability that affects online access.
Following on from the successful change management policy that was utilised for the introduction of the eBox, (Burr and Smith, 2003a), [HREF 4] a comprehensive information and awareness campaign for students was instigated for the internet access policy implementation commencing in 2005.
The policy was communicated to all prospective students via online and hard copy marketing literature. A covering letter was also included in all offer packs alerting prospective students to internet access as a condition of enrolment at CSU. Additionally, a paragraph was included on the actual enrolment form and information provided in online orientation material.
In addition to the widespread consultation in the policy development phase, a number of sessions were arranged for staff at each campus to inform them of the policy implementation. Notices were also posted to the staff online memo board.
It was pleasing to note during Orientation sessions, that most students were aware of the internet access requirement. Interestingly, in a large scale survey of commencing Distance Education students, they listed online facilities as one of the main reasons for choosing to study with CSU.
It was important that a solid, systemic educational and support program be
in place to ensure that all commencing students had not only the necessary
equipment but also the required skills to access the online environment. These
measures included:
•
STUDY LINK – an online enabling subject to help develop online confidence
and competence
•
Orientation sessions held in capital cities
•
Introduction to Study weekends held on campus
•
Development of the Guide to Learning at CSU - a hard copy and online resource
sent to all commencing students.
•
Mary the Mentor – a student mentor available by phone to any student
having difficulty accessing the online environment.
It was equally important to ensure that “safety nets” were in place
for any students disadvantaged by equity issues. In particular, resources were
made available pointing students to low cost recycled, internet ready computers.
The University is also in the process of establishing a computer scheme for
equity support.
It is important to note that regardless of the minimum access requirement, learning materials (e.g. subject outlines, learning guides and readings) continue to be print dominated. However, the successful implementation of the mandatory access policy allows the University to move beyond the dual systems of providing print and online for its support services and where appropriate utilise the third ‘level of access’ referred to by the Working Party, that of online learning, not merely online provision of admin access and support.
In moving from a print based to online based service delivery, the University
underwent a “transition period” where there was uncertainty about
whether the organisation may be ahead of widespread acceptance of change. It
is now clear that the transition period is complete and that CSU can begin
to utilise further online enhancements and reduce print options as appropriate.
The introduction of the policy caused little impact on support services such
as Student Equity Support, Disability Support, the Student Services Help
Desk, support forums or student mentor support.
The minimum internet requirement policy calls for students to access CSU’s
online environment for a minimum of one hour per week. This amount of time
was thought sufficient for students to check their eBox, online forums, complete
online enrolments and check for online updates to subject materials.
In a sense this policy has formalised already established patterns of use by
students. Although the informal feedback is that students spend a far greater
time online than one hour per week, as with past developments, any further
increase in requirements will be demand driven by students.
More importantly, work now needs to begin on the quality of the online experience
for students, particularly in regard to learning support for distance education
students. Very little is known about the “student experience” of
distance students. While CSU has investigated the width of user participation,
work now needs to be directed to the ‘depth’ of such activity.
Barratt (2001) [HREF 15] suggests that ‘at the very least, we should
be attending to the ways that students use IT and we should use these ways
to create developmental and learning based interventions. Our lack of evaluation
reflects a general trend in education and business not to evaluate IT.’
CSU has developed an extensive online environment for its students in both the areas of student learning and student support. Until recently, visiting the online environment was at the student’s discretion. Because of the diverse student cohorts, many of whom belong to equity groups who traditionally are most at risk of experiencing barriers to online access, moving towards a policy of mandatory access was treated with caution. However, in 2005 a policy of minimum internet access for all commencing students was introduced. The policy development is the result of more than 5 years of planning, development and evaluation, and follows research that indicates, contrary to popular assumptions, that students will overcome hurdles to internet access given the appropriate incentives. (Burr & Smith 2003b) [HREF 4].
Based on the results of the user participation research, a mandatory access policy was recommended and approved with the confidence that students would not be disadvantaged by this progression. However, to confirm this direction, further research was undertaken into the reasons behind non access. It was found that a significant proportion of students who had not visited the online environment had no valid reason or access barrier. Regardless of this finding, strategies and support mechanisms were put in place to address any support needs that may arise.
It can be concluded from the experience at CSU that students have found little
impediment to accessing the internet and should organisations be at a similar
stage of online development, they should be upfront in their intentions regarding
online access, rather than working on a far more dangerous paradigm of assumed
access.
AUQA: Australian Universities Quality Agency, (2004), Melbourne. Available online [HREF 13]
Barraket, J., Payne, A., Scott, G., & Cameron, L. (2000). “Equity and the Use of Communications technology” in Higher Education: a UTS Case Study. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Available online [HREF 9]
Barratt, W. (2001). “Managing Information Technology” in Student
Affairs
A Report on Policies, Practices, Staffing and Technology. Student Affairs Online,
Vol2 No 2 (Spring) Available online [HREF 14]
Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O’Brien, D., & Tran, T (2002).
“
Universities Online: a survey of online education and services” in Australia,
Commonwealth Department of Education Science & Training. Available online
[HREF 5]
Burr, L. and Spennemann, D. (2004). “Patterns of User Behaviour in University
Online Forums” in International Journal of Instructional Technology
and Distance Education, Pittsburgh PA, October 2004. Available online [HREF 7]
Burr, L. and Smith, L. (2003a). “A Strategic Change Management Approach to University eCommunications: the eBox Project”, in Ausweb 2003, The Ninth Australian World Wide Web Conference, Hyatt Sanctuary Cove, Gold Coast, from 5th to 9th July 2003.
Burr, L. and Smith, L. (2003b). “The Digital Divide: An Urban Miss”. In G.Crisp, D.Thiele, I.Scholten, S.Barker and J.Baron (Eds), Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Adelaide, 7-10 December 2003. Available online [HREF 4]
Byrnes, R and Ellis A. (2003). Assessment via the Web: A Snapshot of University Practice, in AusWeb 2003, The Ninth Australian World Wide Web Conference, Hyatt Sanctuary Cove, Gold Coast, from 5th to 9th July 2003
Charles Sturt University, (2003). Flexible Learning @ CSU in an E-Environment
Available online [HREF 12]
Charles Sturt University, (2004). Minutes of Implementation Working Party, 22 June 2004.
McCracken, H. (2004). “Extending Virtual Access: Promoting Engagement and Retention through Integrated Support Systems” in Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume VII, Number I, Spring 2004. Available online [HREF 6]
NOIE: National Office for the Information Economy, (2001). The Digital Divide. Available online [HREF 10]
Oliver, R. & Towers, S. (2000). “Up time: Information Communication Technology: Literacy and Access for Tertiary Students in Australia”. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. [HREF 8]
Pascale, P, 1990, Managing on the edge. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Rebbechi, M. and Smith, A. (2002). An online strategy for CSU revisited. Position
paper presented to CSU Information Systems Learning Committee. Available online [HREF 11]
HREF 2
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/studserv
HREF 3
http://www.csu.edu.au
HREF 4
http://www.csu.edu.au
HREF 7
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_04/article01.htm
HREF 8
http://elrond.scam.ecu.edu.au/oliver/2000/aciliteict.pdf
HREF 9
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_7/00_7.pdf
HREF 10
http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/access/Connecting_Communities/Digitaldivide.htm
HREF 11
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/deputyvc/acad/online_learning/mike.doc
HREF 12
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/deputyvc/acad/online_learning
HREF 13
http://www.auqa.edu.au/qualityaudit/sai_reports/reports/auditreport_csu_2004.pdf
HREF 14
http://www.studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Spring_2001/will2.html