Dissertation MAed JEGoddard June 2016

Enhancing the Quality of Post-16 English Education through Online Community Learning
Mrs Jessica E. Goddard Page 1 of 129
How Can I Enhance the Quality of English Teaching
and Learning Through the Use of an E-Community
Platform?
By Mrs Jessica Elizabeth Goddard
Student No: 13125923
Re-submission date: Tuesday 26th
April 2016
The School of Education at Oxford Brookes University
This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements governing
the award of the:
Master of Arts in Education
Supervisor and MA Chair: Prof. David Aldridge
Workshop Co-ordinator: Ms. Georgina Glenny
MA Module Leader: Dr. Susannah Wright
Word count total: 20’600
Module No: ED50 / P70002 (60 credit dissertation)
This Dissertation is an original piece of work which is made available for
photocopying and for inter library loan, with permission of the Head of the
School of Education.
Signed.............................................

Abstract
Data was collected in the form of online questionnaires, and fully structured interviews, to
analyse the effectiveness of online community learning for iGCSE English learners, within a
Further Education setting. This study examines the effectiveness of both an online
community platform, via an institutional logon to a social media site, and the e-drive
resources made available. Furthermore, the learners were given ownership over the
coursework portfolios digitally; through the use of an interactive word processing package.
The learners reviewed this e-portfolio element within their questionnaire responses
(Appendix 1 – Question 5).
In addition, the future scope of the community was taken into consideration; when the
learners were asked to rate the usefulness of the community. This was with reference to
content, design and the potential for asynchronous communication. The research assignment
also revealed the varying success of the online community, through the duration of the
iGCSE English course.
Within the study, it was important to narrow the views collated to the advantages and
disadvantages of the online learning experience; specifically, the ‘social media’ concept of
learners articulating their concerns, in a safe secure environment. The tutor, e-moderator or
peer could respond publically to the learner’s individual concerns.
With reference to the research methods, the student questionnaires were collated over a four-
week period; leading up to the students’ final iGCSE English examination. Fully structured
interviews were also conducted to ascertain the Tutors’ perspective on e-learning pedagogy
and e-community learning. The student perspective was also explored by conducting a fully
structured interview with an adult learner.

With reference to the structure of the questionnaire, R. Likert’s scales were utilised with the
addition of “double questions” and “hypothetical questions” (Bell, 2010, pp. 145-6) in order
to allow some freedom of choice including the potential to offer comments. For example,
Questions 8a, 8b and 9, from Appendix 1, offer both scaffolded sub-questions and open
questions.
In order to avoid “autobiographical” or “narrative” based answers (Blaxter, et al., 2010, p.
193), such as anecdotal evidence, a fixed structure was adopted for the interview questions.
The discourse of the questions was paralleled in order to deliberately avoid any ambiguity
between the Tutors’ responses and the learner’s.
The research findings reflect my own research on e-learning, particularly with reference to
online community learning. The findings support the notion that learners’ utilisation of the
community embedded what they were taught, during the classroom-based sessions. It also
allowed the learners to communicate with their peers asynchronously, by explicitly
signposting their concerns or issues, about the iGCSE course.
Despite this, the research proved that the Google+ platform was only marginally the social
media tool of choice, for academic community learning online (Poore, 2013). Notifying
learners of course updates, via their Smartphones, did not prove to be a popular feature for
the learners (Appendix 5). The direct portability learning strategy therefore failed yet some
learners commented on the usefulness of updating their coursework, via their Google Docs
Application (Ingle & Duckworth, 2013) (Richardson, 2006). Furthermore, the research
directs us towards the importance of both induction training as well as creating and
maintaining a robust community design.
In conclusion, the findings revealed a mixed response to the use of online communities, in
terms of the way it was used both in and outside the iGCSE English class. However, the

learners did value their accessibility to a wealth of read-only resources, for their own revision
and self-study. These read-only resources could be copied and manipulated by individual
users, if necessary.
In order to further this research, a longitudinal study would be required; to validate the
research findings over cohort generations. Or, indeed, if learner thinking towards community
learning has altered. This would involve utilising the same questionnaire format (Appendix 1)
for the next cohort. These new results could offer a comparative analysis and slight shift in
the research focus: from e-learning engagement to academic achievement. Achievement data
could be evidenced, to support this. Logistical cohort selection would also enable a
demographic data match in order to mirror sample groups.
I do hope that the findings from this research will have a positive impact, for all English
lecturers, in the Further Education sector.

Contents
How Can I Enhance the Quality of English Teaching and Learning Through the Use of an E-
Community Platform?................................................................................................................1
Abstract......................................................................................................................................2
Contents .....................................................................................................................................5
Introduction................................................................................................................................8
Background ............................................................................................................................8
Research Focus.......................................................................................................................8
Overall Research Aim and Individual Research Objectives ................................................10
How can I use e-learning to promote continued engagement external to the classroom
environment? ....................................................................................................................10
How do I use Google Drive as a learning platform and how does it go beyond the
education network; for learners? .....................................................................................10
How do I use Google Drive and Google Community within lessons, in unison, as a multi-
platform e-tool?................................................................................................................11
Value of this Research..........................................................................................................12
The Literature Review .............................................................................................................13
An Introduction ....................................................................................................................13
The E-Learning Ideology .....................................................................................................13
Distance Learning ............................................................................................................14
Synchronous Learning......................................................................................................15
Asynchronous Learning....................................................................................................16
The Lifelong Learning Model...........................................................................................16
Technology vs. Motivation to Learn....................................................................................17
Accessibility.........................................................................................................................19
The Educational Shift to E-Learning Development: The Critics.........................................21
Appropriateness................................................................................................................23
Design...............................................................................................................................24
Interaction ........................................................................................................................25
Evaluation.........................................................................................................................26
Digital Economy ..................................................................................................................26
eSpace and eCapacity...........................................................................................................27
Inefficient eLearning............................................................................................................29

Learners and Staff Debate Social Media: for Educational Purposes ...................................33
Context of the study: Contextualising College A ....................................................................35
Distance Learning ................................................................................................................35
Asynchronous learning.........................................................................................................36
The lifelong learning sector..................................................................................................39
Online learning vs. traditional learning................................................................................40
Technology vs. Motivation ..................................................................................................41
Accessibility.........................................................................................................................42
Methodology............................................................................................................................44
An Introduction ....................................................................................................................44
The Context of the Questionnaires ...................................................................................45
The Context of the Interviews...........................................................................................46
Research Setting...................................................................................................................46
Reason I) Limited Guided Learning Hours......................................................................46
Reason II) Asynchronous Live Modelling and Feedback.................................................47
Reason III) Online Communication with Peers Across Vocational Pathways.................48
Reason IV) Homework Reminders and Absence ..............................................................50
Reason V) Opportunities for Group Writing through Co-authorship..............................50
Reason VI) Teaching ESL and ELL learners a First Language Qualification ................52
Reason VII) Online AutoSave Features and Accessibility Monitoring ............................53
Reason VIII) Submitting Learner Coursework Assignments to an Online Plagiarism
Checker Efficiently and Successfully................................................................................54
Reason IX) Learner Recall and Coursework Portfolio Maintenance ..............................54
Reason X) The Portfolio as a Transition Piece Between Home and College...................55
Research Paradigm...............................................................................................................55
Research Design...................................................................................................................56
Research Methods ................................................................................................................56
Validity and Reliability Issues .............................................................................................58
Ethical Issues........................................................................................................................58
Presentation of the Data...........................................................................................................60
Context Prior to Data Collection..........................................................................................60
Context of the Data Gathering Period..................................................................................60
Why collect data on this issue? ............................................................................................60
Key Participants Under Investigation ..................................................................................61

Pivotal Variables ..................................................................................................................61
Analysing the Data...................................................................................................................62
A Multi-Analysis of the Interview and Questionnaire Data ................................................62
Foci I: FELTAG Recommendations .................................................................................62
Foci II: Encouraging Learners to Embed E-Learning via Access Provision...................64
Foci III: Promoting E-tivities, Learner Contributions and the ‘Homework’ Label.........76
Foci IV: Community Membership Populations................................................................81
Foci V: Choosing the Right Social Networking Platform ................................................82
Foci VI: Creating a Stable Online Voice..........................................................................84
Discussion................................................................................................................................86
Foci I: FELTAG Recommendations ....................................................................................86
Foci II: Encouraging Learners to Embed E-Learning via Access Provision .......................86
Foci III: Promoting E-tivities, Learner Contribution and the Homework Label .................88
III.1 – Promoting E-tivities for the Learners....................................................................88
III.2 – Active Learner Contribution..................................................................................90
III.3 – Homework vs. Crafted E-tivities (Out-of-Lesson E-learning)...............................91
Foci IV: Community Membership Populations ...................................................................91
Foci V: Choosing the Right Social Networking Site ...........................................................92
Foci VI: Creating a Stable Online Voice .............................................................................92
VI.1 – Balancing the Online Voice, as a Lecturer and Teacher Trainer .........................92
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................94
Works Cited .............................................................................................................................96
Appendix 1 – Online Questionnaire (Advertised on the Learner Community).....................103
Appendix 2 – Fully Transcribed Interview (with a Staff Member from College A).............108
Appendix 3 – Ethics Form.....................................................................................................123
Appendix 4 – Proposal for Funded Research at College A ...................................................126
Appendix 5 – Learners’ Views, on Social Networking Platforms, from College A .............129

Introduction
Background
Unlike the compulsory education sector, Further Education (FE) learners have the
opportunity to annually retake their iGCSE English until they reach the golden ‘C’ grade
(Porter, 2015, p. 14). They are able to retake these qualifications from the age of sixteen up
until the age of nineteen (Education Funding Agency, 2016). However, the ethos of an FE
college requires the learner to increase their self-study to achieve this (Wolf, 2011, pp. 10-
11). Although this environment is less restricting than a school, most learners battle with the
notion of improving their study skills independently. This derives from the learners’ lack of
opportunity to study flexibly, within their previous school (Broad, 2006, p. 121). In order to
ensure the learners also enrolled on the right English course, we conducted initial
assessments. This confirmed the learners’ suitability for a Cambridge International
Examinations (CIE) iGCSE English course Specification Number: 0522 (Cambridge
International Examinations, 2013). However, in order to succeed at the qualification, the
learner needed to engage with a portion of e-learning; to improve their self-study, outside the
classroom, and ultimately succeed at the course.
Research Focus
My concern was the reduced contact time, on offer, for the learners (The Guardian, 2014).
This led lecturers to feel the need to rush their lessons and take less risks with their pedagogy.
The Education and Training Foundation blame lack of trained English and Mathematics
specialists, working within the FE sector (The Education and Training Foundation, 2014, pp.
4-5). Yet, the research into online community learning included the possibility that the
reduced contact time could be complemented with by this very same model (FELTAG,

2013). This secure space would be the designated course community, for the college.
Learners could interact with web-based resources, outside the lesson. The asynchronous
interactivity also allowed the English learner to balance this course with their full-time
vocational course commitments as well as their part-time employment. Offering a robust
learning space increased the learners’ chances of succeeding, for their iGCSE English course.
The alternative online approaches would need to be considered and explored in order to offer
the learners’ both a breadth and depth of study.
I trialled a small online community with a WJEC GCSE English Language cohort, between
September 2013 and June 2014. This cohort engaged with the online content but this
particular qualification did not suit the majority of the learners. This was mainly due to the
fact that the learners were burdened with too many Controlled Assessments. These time
consuming centre-assessed components did not provide adequate preparation for the final
examination. Based on the constraints of the WJEC GCSE English Language specification,
we then shifted the course provision to CIE iGCSE English, for First Language Learners,
from September 2014.
By September 2014, a new iGCSE English community was designed; due to the change of
course, exam board and cohort. There was also more of an emphasis on revising for the
terminal exams, due to the decreased emphasis on internally assessed work.

Overall Research Aim and Individual Research Objectives
The questions, associated with integrating an online community interface, have been
highlighted and amplified below:
How can I use e-learning to promote continued engagement external to the classroom
environment?
The e-learning activities or e-tivities (Salmon, 2002, p. 87), are deliberately designed to
engage and inspire by posing targeted questions via a status update live, during the lesson
itself. This is published within the safe parameters of the online community. Learners are
then asked, as part of a starter activity, to respond to the question with an appropriate answer
which doesn’t replicate the previous user’s comment. Outside the classroom, the learners are
then encouraged to pose ‘learning questions,’ through the use of the community interface.
This could be content-specific, skills-specific or a general progress check on understanding.
Other learners are invited to respond to the initiator of the original comment. Likewise,
learners are expected to comment on the usability of the resources published, by the tutors.
The learners therefore drive the resource-rich environment of this learning space.
How do I use Google Drive as a learning platform and how does it go beyond the
education network; for learners?
As well as having the ability to access the online community continuously, both in and
outside the lesson, the learners also have access to an online word processing package via an
institutional subscription to a cloud drive. In this virtual space, the learners are expected to
regularly engage with an iGCSE English interactive workbook. This extension to online
learning is more private yet rigorous in its approach. Instead of responding briefly to a
comment posted on the iGCSE English community page, for example, the learner engages

with a document that only their tutor has been given access to. It contains instructions and
guidance concerning the core coursework components, the Speaking and Listening
examination and the terminal examination. For the latter, excerpts from past and specimen
paper material are provided with the expectation that the learners respond to key examination
questions. Similarly, the Tutor can utilise this platform to constantly mark work. Where the
marking of drafts is prohibited, as instructed by the exam board (Cambridge International
Examinations, 2013, p. 26), the Tutor can engage with the learner on a one-to-one, to discuss
the progress they have made with their coursework thus far.
How do I use Google Drive and Google Community within lessons, in unison, as a multi-
platform e-tool?
At the start of every English lesson, the learners are advised to open the following
programmes:
 The iGCSE English community page
 The iGCSE English Workbook on their cloud drive (using their institutional logon)
With the community page, the learners will either engage with a prescribed starter task.
Alternatively, the learners can view the most recent posts and respond in whatever way they
deem appropriate; in order to continue the learning. This could be extending the initial
dialogue, from the original status, or adding a helpful link, to further the discussion (Salmon,
2002, p. 104). By utilising both programmes in unison, the learners are benefitting from a
holistic multi-platform e-tool as they engage with the learning on several levels such as:
 face-to-face with their peers, through discussion and debate (Blass & Davis, 2003,
p. 229);

 face-to-face with their tutor and respective support staff. such as a Student Coach
(Alexander, 2001, p. 243);
 online via the community page: this includes networking with their peers from
their class as well as with peers, from other classes, studying the same course
(Noss, 2007, p. 8);
 online via their e-word document via the cloud facility where the Tutor will be
able to make both summative and formative comments on the work (Fordham &
Martin, 2015, p. 13).
Value of this Research
Enhancing the provision of English is paramount to the success of our learners, within
Further Education (Pullen & Varley-Winter, 2014, p. 6). If we cannot enhance the
compulsory Level 2 English course we offer (in this case: iGCSE English for First Language
Learners) by increasing the tuition time, then an innovative platform should be introduced
through the emergence and existence of an online community. The argument posed here is,
without this online facility, the learners would not engage with the course outside the lesson
and thereby approach the qualification as a standalone subsidiary to their main programme.
To this end, although membership to the collaborative community is not forced, it is strongly
encouraged (by the associate English lecturers) so the learners are able to take away a virtual
parcel of learning with them, when they leave the classroom. It is vital therefore to evaluate
the effectiveness of this embedded e-learning, within our main Level 2 English course, across
College A.

The Literature Review
An Introduction
This literature review has been constructed through an amalgamation of studying various e-
learning models across the world. It is important to portray the international perspective on e-
learning so this can be compared with the British equivalents, in education, and what we can
learn from our international counterparts. Literature has been incorporated from Australia and
the United States of America as well as from the United Kingdom. Failed attempts to
incorporate e-learning have also been considered for the purpose of this project in order to
determine and analyse how a successful e-learning can be executed, in my own institution.
The E-Learning Ideology
“E-learning will be the great equalizer in the new century. By eliminating barriers of
time, distance, and socio-economic status, individuals can now take charge of their
own lifelong learning.”
(Gunasekaran, et al., 2002, p. 46)
This e-learning principle is in itself ideological, Gunasekaran et al. assume here that the
learner (or “individuals”) automatically feel empowered to lead their own “lifelong learning”
journey. Unfortunately, for some learners, this is not always the case. The reasons for this can
vary anything from ICT incompetency to low levels of engagement with technology to prior
attainment or achievement. Where automatic empowerment is void or omitted, it is important
for the practitioner to motivate his or her learners to learn, through the use of various e-
learning strategies such as social media (for academic purposes), online community learning,
blogging and podcasting (Poore, 2013, p. 11). Several themes have also been taken from the

ideological statement above and discussed below, in order to define the broad term of e-
learning. This term, in my view, is often used all too readily within the education industry;
both across the further education and higher education sector.
Distance Learning
Through the use of e-learning, distance learning is now broadly reported as “the most
convenient and appropriate mode of delivery” (Gilbert, et al., 2007, p. 561). A distance e-
learning model is a highly appropriate tool as this mode of learning can operate off campus
entirely. It is often utilised in order to allow the learner access to college or school facilities
remotely. Notably, this distant-learning cohort may “otherwise be unable to access learning
experiences” (Blass & Davis, 2003, p. 229). For example, these learners maybe
geographically located away from campus (e.g. a non-commutable distance) but this may not
be the prime reason for choosing a distance learning course.
When a learner is forced to be educated off-site, and away from the physicality of both the
learning space and the tutor, this style of distance learning (through the use of e-learning)
works very well with adult professionals who attempt to balance part-time study around their
full-time employment or family commitments (Bates, 2005, p. 188). This type of learning can
be highly effective: By creating “learning spaces in their own homes,” these learners are able
to “control the pace” of the learning (Blass & Davis, 2003, p. 229). A review of the literature
overall suggests that, due to the increasing availability of distance learning courses, learner
enrolment to colleges and schools has risen dramatically across the Western world. The
learner is therefore now motivated to take their learning in their own hands and, in some
instances, drive the pace and delivery of the learning itself. In order to provide an effective e-
learning space, distance is therefore not just a factor but time is as well. Therefore,
asynchronous e-learning is a dynamic strategy to use. Otherwise, the learner may be forced to

remotely, or synchronously, log on to their virtual learning space. Both the terms
synchronous and asynchronous learning have been defined and explained below.
Synchronous Learning
Synchronous Learning is where the learner is required to log into a virtual learning space for
a specific amount of time on a specific day, which has been prescribed by the moderator
and/or Tutor. It has many advantages. For example, if a Tutor has logged on synchronously to
an online training session, which could be hosted by his/her centre’s assigned examination
board, then the Tutor will have an opportunity to interact ‘live’ with other colleagues in
different centres. The main connection between this group will be the qualification they are
teaching and the examination board they have all chosen. For distance learners, online
synchronous learning can be hugely beneficial as it can bring them together in one virtual
learning space. In fact, due to budget constraints and the increasing popularity of learners
taking English and Maths (after compulsory education), it is now commonplace for an exam
board to offer training to centres virtually, in the first instance. The Assessment and
Qualifications Alliance (AQA) now coin these virtual training sessions as “webinars” (AQA,
2015) (Dey, et al., 2009, p. 391).
Despite the major advantages of asynchronous online communication, some H.E. institutions
such as “Glasgow and Lancaster Universities run some on-line seminars which are time
bound” (Blass & Davis, 2003, p. 229). This would not suit a vocational group of learners, in
an F.E. college (for example), where the group wishes to pursue a part-time Level 2 academic
course (in English or Mathematics). But, some of these learners limit themselves exclusively
to the synchronous online learning which operates within the classroom itself. They do not
realise the huge benefits that asynchronous online learning can bring.

Asynchronous Learning
This is where the learner does not necessarily need to be logged on simultaneously as the
instructor. A good example of this is a learner’s planned absence from a physical lesson but
they are still able to contribute to a message board or online community interface. This could
have been initiated by the instructor, at a different time. This flexible approach to online
learning suits learners who maybe juggling part-time study and part-time work. It also allows
learners to participate in learning, even though they may follow an alternative study timetable
to their peers. If this mode of learning can be personalised, for the individual, through the use
of technology this pedagogical approach is sometimes referred to as “distributed
asynchronous learning.” This is where the location and time become irrelevant factors,
regarding the accessibility and interaction with differentiated online material (Wallace, 2011,
p. 146). Wallace, an author who has published work specifically on how to engage Further
Education learners, warns her readers that this approach should not be taken lightly and
various external factors should be taken into consideration; before embarking on this
pedagogical branch of asynchronous education. For example, observing your learners’
“specific barriers to learning,” which may very well be IT literacy based, as well as how the
learning will be managed or altered (Wallace, 2011, p. 146).
The Lifelong Learning Model
This model suggests that learners, throughout most of their lives, will need to study
constantly in order to progress in the world. This principle does not include an online element
as such but, as the world of education has progressed to the online domain, so too do learners
and cohorts adapt to training and learning later in life (Ingle & Duckworth, 2013, p. 21). This
is where e-learning can be used to support the lifelong learning model which could transcend
into training within the professional working world. The trainee, or learner will be able to

recognise that, in order to succeed in their future career (or even become promoted within
their own company), they need to be prepared to be fully immersed in both online and face-
to-face learning; and be ready to engage with the material.
Although e-learning can be extremely beneficial, as a driving force for a multitude of
educational courses (whether this be studied via a distance learning route, or otherwise), we
also have to constantly remind ourselves, as educational professionals, that “the use of
information technology does not […] itself improve learning” (Alexander, 2001, p. 241).
Therefore, the technology alone will not motivate the learner. The driving force of the e-
learning initiative must thereby derive from the instructor themselves (Day, 2014, pp. 10-11).
In order to lead a successful course (with a fixed e-learning segment), the instructor must feel
comfortable with embedding e-learning into their own pedagogy. Therefore, the instructor
must be passionate about e-learning, irrespective of their academic background and/or
teaching specialism.
Technology vs. Motivation to Learn
If technology, for our learners, is used as a tool for motivation, lecturers should be equally
motivated to develop this tool. The Education Foundation insist that Ofsted include the use of
e-learning, in their set of criterion, which will help standardise the field of e-learning in
education and hopefully detract some practitioners from “the mixed bag of resources and
approaches currently in use” (The Education Foundation, 2011, p. 73). Moreover, technology
is still seen in education today as something to be experimented with rather than an
embedded part of pedagogy.
In addition, some traditional practitioners still seem to favour pen and paper as “the
marketplace still demands traditional methods of delivery of instruction.” (Gunasekaran, et

al., 2002, p. 45). In comparison, the United Kingdom are calling for a complete overhaul of
the traditional pen and paper method, pushing to have this method of examination replaced
by 2023 (Paton, 2013). This can be explicitly linked to models of assessment; specifically,
the way in which the British test their learners and how testing methods have altered. Paton
argues there has been minimal development, in this area, since the early 1900s.
In addition to the terminal exam, which is usually scheduled at the end of the taught
component of the course, it is important that the learners are given a set of assessment
criteria. In providing this, the e-learning carries precedence; it allows the learners to prioritise
the task because they have interactive access to the translated exam criteria itself. Eventually,
the e-learning will become an embedded and compulsory course component; as opposed to
something additional or an afterthought (Alexander, 2001, p. 242). E-learning is similar to
how home-learning tasks should be executed. It should be well planned and introduced fairly
early in the course so that the learners can reap the benefits, from the outset. If designed and
incorporated correctly, into the main body of the course, it should directly relate to the
distance travelled (for the learner) as well as the academic achievement.
Setting compulsory e-learning modules also overcomes some learners’ “degree of resistance
to new forms of learning” (Alexander, 2001, p. 242). This is because some practitioners still
incorrectly assume that good learning takes place in the static environment. A prime example
is when a tutor delivers a lecture (p. 242). However, it is the role of the tutor to steer the
learner towards learner-led learning. Only when the learner is able to take the ownership for,
their own learning, will s/he make the ‘leap’ and become successful; not just educationally
but also in their professional working lives. Once the learner has made this transition, due to

instructor-led motivation (with the e-learning fully embedded), they then become an
“enquiring student” rather than a helpless one. Despite this, the challenge still remains to
maintain “high levels of student motivation” through the use of “highly adaptable software
systems” (Brown, et al., 2013, p. 8). Therefore, multiple e-platforms may very well be
explored and trialled, before the course commences. Conversely, if we take The Education
Foundation’s view of multi-platforms as a “mixed bag” (The Education Foundation, 2011, p.
73) the consensus is that too many platforms will confuse and alienate the learners.
Therefore, a primary e-platform should be introduced to the learners as the main programme
of utility.
Accessibility
Assuming the learner has the necessary access to e-learning, it has the “potential to improve
the quality of learning” (Gilbert, et al., 2007, p. 561). This is particularly important for our
standalone learners who enrol on just part-time English and Mathematics courses, at Level 2,
within our Further Education colleges in England. Gunaeskaran et. al. also describes these
types of learners (for example, adults who lack the necessary study skills combined with a
long absence from formal education) as the more vulnerable members of the educational
community. These part-time learners often have little exposure to campus life. They are
immediately put at a disadvantage due to “living in remote rural communities” with little or
no access to the internet (Gunasekaran, et al., 2002, p. 45). Thirteen years on, technology
provision has increased hugely both within the home and the educational environment. But,
there is still a minority of learners who do not have a home broadband connection, home
device or computer and limited data usage on their portable devices. This mainly derives
from a financial hardship issue and is a commonplace scenario for the learners who attend
College A, due to the catchment area.

Within the educational establishment itself, it becomes paramount to provide an expert online
experience; for this minority. This is especially for those who study away from campus the
majority of the time. Even when the tutors and learners are on campus, it is just as important
to have a “reliable technology network” as well as a “technology support service.” Without
these support networks, embedded from the outset, the learner(s) will not be able to fully
embed the e-learning into the course content itself (Alexander, 2001, p. 243).
The dissemination of the e-learning itself becomes highly personalised and differentiated in
order to avoid the ‘one size fits all’ model. It includes “the student experience of learning,
teachers’ strategies, teachers’ planning and thinking, and the teaching / learning context”
(Alexander, 2001, p. 240). An example of this could be the Tutor’s open sharing of the
medium term plan for the course. This is sometimes referred to as the Scheme of Learning
(SoL). Ideally, it should be shared in advance of the first lesson. In addition, the learners
should also be able to access digitally, in advance of the lesson, the relevant lesson plan(s)
and resources. In short, “the teachers’ conception of learning has a major influence on the
planning of courses” (p. 240) and it’s vital that learners are able to see the tutors’ planning as
it progresses. Similarly, the expectation would be that the tutor has already shared and refined
his or her planning and resource materials, with colleagues online both within and also
outside of the immediate educational organisation. This process of refinement and
moderation allows the learner to have a cohesive and visually attractive learning experience.
In addition to sharing planning materials, it is also advised to offer the learners an e-skills
audit in order to assess what they feel comfortable using, before the e-learning module is
formally introduced. This class-based review allows the instructor to efficiently organise his
or her time and guarantees a personalised e-learning experience. The end result will be a
well-constructed differentiated online course which has been designed around the digital
proficiency of your learners (Alexander, 2001, p. 241). This good practise should be

undertaken with rigour and consistency, throughout the academic year. An end of year survey
should also be administered. This can be accomplished by collating data on the learners’
views of the e-learning available. An optimum time to offer this is after the qualification is
completed (prior to collecting the certificate). If an end-of-year review cannot bet offered, it
becomes exceedingly difficult to decipher the successful online elements of the course
(Alexander, 2001, p. 242) (Attwell, 2006) as well as the failures. To summarise, a
comprehensive review system must be implemented, at interim points across the academic
year, in order to check the validity and reliability of the e-learning (Alexander, 2001, p. 243).
The Educational Shift to E-Learning Development: The Critics
Some researchers argue that a lecturer’s varying confidence in e-technologies can have a
detrimental impact on the learner’s online experience:
The use of e-learning at the teaching and learning interface was informed by lecturers’
personal characteristics and their belief in its effects.
(Golden, et al., 2006, p. 71)
It is certainly is the case that the e-learning platform(s) can only be driven by the “belief” of
the “lecturer” and the integration of e-learning also varies depending on the faculty or even
the specific course. Furthermore, the way specific departments adopt e-learning relies mostly
on the written evidence the learners are required to produce, against their respective
qualifications. For example, a Travel and Tourism vocational learner is expected to produce
at least 80% more coursework than a learner who has enrolled on a Professional Cookery
course. Moreover, the use of “plagiarism” software can vary hugely. One department may use
a simple assignment submission software portal, such as Google Classroom, whereas another
department may require a concrete breakdown of where learners have quoted certain sources.

For the latter, some lecturers may utilise a comprehensive ‘turn it in’ portal in order to
produce a detailed plagiarism report.
Gunasekaran, Blass & Davis et. al. also argues that “learners [are] not responding to e-
learning as anticipated” and, as a result, we need to construct a “more practical framework for
achieving success […] with care” (Gunasekaran, et al., 2002, p. 44). Moreover, this
“framework” must be introduced and adopted by all staff, across the respective institution, if
a new e-learning policy is to be fruitful. Blass and Davis argue that we can only build this
framework with two necessary components:
1. “Solid foundations”
2. “Establishing criteria for e-learning development” (Blass & Davis, 2003, p. 227)
However, with reference to point 2, there are two issues which need to be separated. Firstly,
the value of e-learning in the classroom and how staff development (in this area) varies.
Secondly, the structures that need to be put in place in order to facilitate a robust e-learning
platform.
The issues mentioned above can be separated into four distinct categories. Blass and Davis
propose that there are “four” ‘higher order’ criterion for e-learning:
i) Appropriateness
ii) Design
iii) Interaction
iv) Evaluation
(Blass & Davis, 2003, p. 232)
Each category, which Blass and Davis propose is neither cumulative nor hierarchical, has
been amplified below against other critics of e-learning…

Appropriateness
Like with the discourse of face-to-face conversations, online dialogues should be highly
appropriate and this should be monitored at all times. Grice coined this the “co-operative
principle” and the maxim of relevance/appropriateness should be maintained, at all times, in
order to provide a fluid and relevant discourse. Although a slightly outdated model, modern
linguists still refer to Grice’s Maxims today as the epitome of a quality conversation and the
same can be applied to the virtual world of learning (Davies, 2000) (King & Sereno, 1984, p.
264). Despite these critics’ appreciation of Grice, both King and Sereno do not believe that
you can manifest an appropriate conversation through “digital language.” However, the
context surrounding this claim is only when the participant has not met his or her associate
participant. My argument is a highly appropriate dialogue can be maintained online through a
blended approach (Kineo, 2013); whereby both participants converse face-to-face and online.
Moreover, Poore discusses the importance of minimising any inappropriate online behaviour
in the modern age (Poore, 2013, pp. 138-9). This can sometimes naturally manifest itself
when either the Tutor is inexperienced or lacks confidence in the use of e-learning, within the
classroom. Alternatively, this could be replicated in a scenario where the learners may not be
comfortable with utilising social networking sites, such as Google+, for educational and
professional purposes. The two most significant “guiding principles” to consider, thereby
avoiding the misuse of e-learning, is the “appropriateness of staff and content” as well as
carefully monitoring the “student-student interaction” (Gilbert, et al., 2007, p. 562) (Blass &
Davis, 2003). There is a fine balance of moderating the community, as a tutor, and
intervening in online dialogues, between your learners. If the online discussion is
argumentative, yet highly appropriate and engaging, it may be better to utilise such material
as a discussion point. For example, it could be blended into the face-to-face classroom

context as opposed to intervening online. This will ultimately allow the conversation to
develop into a healthy, comprehensive learning discourse.
Daniel R. Tobin further simplifies the role of an online moderator, or even groups of
moderators, aptly as “a group of people who can guide” the learners by offering a wealth of
“opportunities” to “answer […] questions” as well as “give you the benefit of their own
knowledge and experience” (Tobin, 1998). Building a “Personal Learning Network,” or PLN,
should be limited to an internal tutor-learner community. It has, in fact, been documented that
lecturers learn a great deal by networking online with other professionals externally (Pataraia,
et al., 2013). Alternatively, networks can also be formulated over a certain period of time,
between colleagues, and face-to-face CPD sessions can be arranged in the form of ‘Teach
Meets’ where one institution may act as the host centre.
Design
Despite many learners now readily being able to use technology competently and expertly,
both in and outside the classroom, the underlying design is paramount to the usability of the
educational online community. A solid design foundation allows the user to proficiently
utilise the resource without becoming concerned about the overall structure of the online
portal. As well as a formal design frame (e.g. the intricate code that is used to build the
website or community page), it is important to schedule design conversations, with your
learners, prior to using the technology. E-learning activities can be poorly designed so
“scaffolding” activities are introduced. These include a justifiable reason why the learners are
being asked to use the technology (Poore, 2013, pp. 21-22). This verbal introduction is
accompanied by a Course Handbook, or Study Guide, which includes a ‘How to’ section. An
example of this is an instructional page, which is clearly numbered and easy to follow, on
how to join the community for the respective course. In addition, any online homework

activities will be formally embedded into the Scheme of Learning (SOL) and shared in
advance with the learners.
Interaction
A highly successful distance learning institution, The Open University, discovered that “on-
line tutorials” improved learner communication. This is because the learners were able to
process their response fully before replying, within their online discourse (Gunasekaran, et
al., 2002, p. 228). If online dialogues are considered more carefully, this will have an impact
on the value of online discussions. They will become meaningful and, unlike Speaking and
Listening examinations (which often take place in a traditional classroom context), a
permanent record of the dialogue is created. This enables the learners, or online participants,
to reflect on the discourse visually. Moreover, this can represent an extremely useful revision
tool, especially when the time comes to revise the topic or unit. However, the only
disadvantage to conversing in an online community context is that brief utterances are
sometimes expressed “rather than real debate” (Gunasekaran, et al., 2002, p. 228).
With reference to networking online, for educational purposes, there is no real obligation to
respond to an initial status or post (published online). Therefore, online discourse cannot
completely replicate real discourse; where there is a physical and visual pressure to respond
instantly, or synchronously (Goddard & Geesin, 2009). There are therefore problems with an
over reliance in technology. When introducing learners to technology, there needs to be a
face-to-face presence from the tutor which balances equally with productive online dialogues.
Online dialogue and “debate[s]” also need to be “stimulating” (Blass & Davis, 2003, p. 229)
and enticing in their very nature. This is where the tutor embraces the role of a “moderator”
or facilitator, rather than the discussion-protagonist.

Evaluation
Poore, (2013) cites a multitude of social media tools, you can utilise, either synchronously or
asynchronously. It is the role of the tutor to facilitate learners’ e-learning development. This
includes developing learners’ evaluation skills online as well as instructing them how to
analyse and synthesise the wealth of information, learners now have an abundance of.
Learners can be educated on how to competently select key information from traditional
internet web pages or through links; posted on community learning forums (Poore, 2013, p.
17). However, with reference to formally evaluating the extent of the learner’s utilisation of
e-learning, within the confines of the course, the instructor can request “generic feedback
[…] in the form of tweets” (Poore, 2013, p. 125) or exploit online opinion “polls and
surveys” (Poore, 2013, p. 138). This can easily be constructed through programmes such as
Google Forms, which allows the instructor to gain automatically tabulated and anonymised
data.
Digital Economy
Embedding a rigorous and effective e-learning system depends very much on the level of
funding. Once in place, an efficient e-learning system can bring huge benefits for both the FE
and HE sector. The advantages could be categorised into four distinct areas: “improving the
quality of learning,” “access to education,” “reducing costs” and “improving cost-
effectiveness.” (Gunasekaran, et al., 2002, p. 45). So in terms of priorities and benefits,
financial costing (as well as economic value) is just as important as quality and accessibility.
Financial investment aside, the instructor, or tutor, should constantly be creating “good
quality e-learning experiences” (Gilbert, et al., 2007, p. 561). These four discrete sets of e-
learning factors can also be attributed to Bates (Bates, 1997). This is also discussed in E-
learning developments and experiences (Alexander, 2001, p. 240).

In addition, e-learning has proven to be a fantastic “communication” tool and community
learning is also very much a part of this. If administered and operated correctly, community
learning can prove to be a “very capable” “intranet” portal for “a comprehensive learning”
experience (Gunasekaran, et al., 2002, p. 45). This includes innovative networking
opportunities “with instructors, experts and colleagues.” Therefore, it can be utilised as a both
a continuing professional development tool, for tutors, as well as a virtual classroom
experience for learners.
However, some HE institutions may feel pressured into incorporating e-learning in order to
survive as “universities will be economically or efficiency driven” (Blass & Davis, 2003, p.
229). Even within FE colleges, there is an overwhelming pressure to create a stable and
consistently strong online voice. This needs to be delivered across professional social
networking platforms (through a multitude of online networking programmes such as
Google+ and Twitter). Currently, these social networking sites are free to use and reflect the
kind of programmes FE colleges rely on, due to funding cuts. However, this may change in
the near future as members are now more willing to pay for a higher status enrolment or
membership (Hungenberg, et al., 2008).
eSpace and eCapacity
The possibilities to store content securely online are endless and portals such as Moodle can
store an incomprehensible amount of “exam questions [and] PowerPoint presentations for use
in lectures” (Gunasekaran, et al., 2002, p. 45). Despite the capacity to safely and easily
upload static lesson content, the rise of the Web 2.0 era has allowed learners to progress with
their learning (Gilbert, et al., 2007, p. 560). Now, the consensus is that “e-leaning should be a
learning experience, not a reading experience” (Blass & Davis, 2003, p. 229). In order to
meet the demands of the modern online education-user, there is now increased usage of

portable devices, both in and outside the classroom (in both FE and HE). Therefore, learners
can now arrive, prepared for the lecture, armed with the digital content before, during and
after the interactive learning experience or lesson. This is with the additional ability to make
live notes on the resources. In doing this, learners are able to “create their own [online]
textbook” (Gunasekaran, et al., 2002, p. 45) and even make this a collaborative effort by
adding group contributors to their online resources. Platforms such as Google Docs can prove
to be highly valuable resources, with reference to this facility: adopting both synchronous and
asynchronous online authors and co-collaborators. There’s now even a need, for accessing
and using online content, more than ever as “the number of adults seeking higher education
has exploded” (p. 45) both in the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. This is despite the fact that
the part-time budget for adults, within Further Education, has dwindled over recent years
(Thomson, et al., 2015, p. 1).
The “learning organisations” (Gunasekaran, et al., 2002, p. 47) model can now be applied to
not just Further Education colleges, in the United Kingdom, but universities as well. FE and
HE providers need to “adapt to the changing environment” of learners by requesting course
content, on demand, as opposed to waiting for the instructor to disseminate or deliver the
content face-to-face. This method of the learner, waiting for the learning event to occur, is
swiftly becoming an outdated model. This is due to the rise in collaborative online learning.
Therefore, modes and instances of merging ideas, on how e-learning is incorporated across
phases are vital. This is because it provides a message to the learner that they can tailor-make
their own learning experience, within the confines of their education pathway or programme.
If sectors do not network regularly, and discuss the constant re-modification of their online
learning programmes on offer, then the result will be failure “to prepare students for
participation in learning experiences such as working in groups.”

Inefficient eLearning
Subscribing to online courses, through a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), have multiple
benefits but only for the active and proficient reader. Readability, or the ability to self-select
key information for a research project (for example), is a highly refined skill which may not
necessarily exist for a typical Further Education Level 2 English learner. The Education
Foundation (TEF) label the online education model, of ‘accessibility for all,’ as a
“revolution.” This is mostly due to recent technological advances and “exponential growth,”
in conjunction with “smartphone” usage as this kind of portability allows “young people” to
“access” “information in real time” at the touch of their “fingertips” (The Education
Foundation, 2014a, p. 6). Although having access to content quickly benefits learners, more
often than not a typical Level 2 English learner will overuse popular search engines and
accept the first link which is offered. Learners need to develop a criticality in the way they
analyse and utilise resources found online (Anon, 2015).
TEF also cite the economic value of creating online courses and groups as well as the ability
to freely and efficiently create and share knowledge beyond the classroom. Although it is true
that allowing your learners to subscribe, to online courses, can be hugely advantageous, this
blended learning approach is a utopian ideal; in principle. This is mainly due to the users’
varying ability to search and retrieve information online, even though the information may
very well be categorised into a user-friendly structure or interface.
In addition, TEF also cite the rise of the MOOC (a “Massive Open Online courses”) as an
apparent modern-day “phenomenon”:
“The [introduction of] MOOCs […] such as the EdX, Khan Academy, Udacity and
Futurelearn […] have started to change the way higher education and indeed learning

is accessed, used and accredited. It is in this rapidly changing landscape that [popular
social networking sites] work […] as a tool for teaching and learning.”
(The Education Foundation, 2014a, p. 6)
TEF argue that a MOOC can be easily embedded into a PLN or a learner community
network. In fact, this is far from the truth. The user needs to subscribe separately to the online
course itself, directly through that interface (and away from the social networking site). After
this process has been actioned, the user will then be required to self-select the course which is
highly suited to the qualification they may be studying, through their home institution. Again,
a typical FE, or Level 2 learner, would view the online course as additional learning rather
than approaching this through an embedded mind-set. Perhaps at A2 (A Level – Year 2), or
Level 3, this academic learner may appreciate an interface (like Apple’s iTunes U) as an
enrichment tool, for their education. But even a learner, at this level, would struggle to
assimilate the online course to the traditional qualification they are subscribed to at their local
school or college. Despite this, within H.E., “the pace of engagement for iTunes U is growing
rapidly […] with more than one billion iTunes U downloads” (Etherington, 2013). Moreover,
even the likes of Stanford University have invested huge amounts in Apple iPads as well as
iTunes U subscriptions in order to enrich their student’s experience of learning,
technologically. In fact, enrolling on a Stanford University iTunes U course has become so
intricate and complex, it makes “this amazing resource [available] to everyone in the world”
(Snell, 2015).
Even within the Medical Industry, Prober and Heath argue that little has changed since the
evolution of hosting relevant content online, for medical students (Prober & Heath, 2012, p.
1657). With reference to offering a cohesive and well-designed online package, there is
definitely more that can be developed, for medical students, and Prober and Heath remind us

that we need to embody “a learning strategy that is self-paced and mastery-based [as well as]
boosts engagement” (Prober & Heath, 2012, p. 1658). Engaging a learner with a wider
variety of high level and comprehensive content is certainly a challenge which even an
English Lecturer may also face, in an F.E. setting (for example), due to reduced tuition time
with their learners.
In addition, where the online element of the course is perhaps incorrectly used as the leading
edge tool to re-design curriculum, this is perhaps where pedagogy is misleadingly adapted
and altered, in order to complement the ‘online element.’ These subtle alterations “are also
starting to radically change the way schools and colleges design the curriculum and how,
when, and where knowledge and learning is accessed.” (The Education Foundation, 2014b, p.
18). The TEF also warn that “the rise of technology is ‘positively disrupting’ across the
learning world” and is ultimately “changing the [UK Education] landscape for ever.” (The
Education Foundation, 2014b, p. 18). The argument therefore is that we invest our
educational resources, and teachers, too much into the online interface without questioning
the curriculum design implications and usability issues that learners may experience off-
campus (Ferenstein, 2013).
A result of this is the need for policy to be published but is unfortunately ‘playing catch-up’
with the educational technological growth spurt of our modern age. The TEF also warn that
we need to consider carefully the “role that digital technology can play in supporting the
economy, skills, growth and social fitness of our nation” (The Education Foundation, 2014b,
p. 18). Suitability, or whether the online content fits snugly into the traditional course, is
something that requires careful consideration; not just conducted by the tutor or lecturer but
often the department or even the institution itself (Karsenti & Fievez, 2013).

With reference to recent shifts, within the paradigm of policy implementation and
development (under the umbrella of online learning and development), the Further Education
Learning Technology Action Group (or FELTAG) have published a set of recommendations
with reference to the changing e-learning landscape and the “paths forward to a digital future
for Further Education and Skills” (FELTAG, 2013). Since these recommendations were
published, as a result of a consultation in October 2014, FELTAG have published further a
progress report; in response to recent developments. Within this report, the “role of learning
technologies” has been recognised as a rapidly evolving platform and, if implemented
correctly, can improve the learning experience (Department for Business Innovation and
Skills, 2015, p. 7).
FELTAG also cite some issues, associated with integrating e-learning content into a college
or university course, may be due to the practitioners’ limited understanding to “embed” this
“technology.” If the staff training model is water-tight, then “an evolving culture of blended
learning” will follow (Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2015, p. 7).
Furthermore, FELTAG also recommend that this “culture” of “blended learning” can be embedded by
offering direct routes into employability. For example, offering “industry-standard technologies”
which will cement and unify a learners understanding, of such e-technologies, from their studies
(within the institution) to the workplace itself. This transition, into the workplace, must be smooth and
e-learning can certainly help with this.
With reference to the rise of the static MOOC, FELTAG also admit that further exploration is needed
in this area in order to full “support learning delivery” (Department for Business Innovation and
Skills, 2015, p. 7).

Learners and Staff Debate Social Media: for Educational Purposes
A Pathways Manager, and a leader of e-learning, used a Padlet with his learners to initiate a
discussion concerning the potential superficiality of e-learning. This lecturer also asked his
learners, as well as colleagues, if e-learning has a place in modern day education. The
question posed was as follows: “Does the use of social media in education make for a
superficial learning experience?”
Within this Padlet, there is the argument that social media can be used as “gimmick rather
than a meaningful addition to the learning experience” (E, 2015). Coffield argues that the
number of gadgets the learner owns or the number of hours they contribute online makes no
difference (Coffield, 2009, pp. 50-59). In other words, learners need to adapt to using social
media in an educational context. Surprisingly, some learners are reluctant to do this.
Similarly, another learner argued (from the Padlet debate) that popular social networking
sites, like Twitter, can be a fantastic communication tool but whether it could make “a
substantial impact on learning” is debatable but, if used correctly, it can be a highly effective
tool; allowing for collaborative and peer based learning (both in and outside the classroom)
(Noss, 2007, p. 18).
At the very same further education college, the Continuing Professional Development
manager responded to the Padlet, arguing that social networking “does not make for a
superficial learning experience.” HT defended the use of social media, for educational
purposes, by explaining how she uses it in the classroom:
My use of social media with learners has been for sharing ideas and extending the
learning experience: providing further areas for exploration and enabling learning

outside of the planned lesson time. We have had live revision sessions and learners
have built their confidence in sharing their work with their peers.
(E, 2015)
HT’s pedagogical approach resonates with the Teaching and Learning Research
Programme’s first report on “Technology Enhanced Learning” (Noss, 2007, p. 18). Like HT,
Noss also discusses the benefits of “peer feedback.” Moreover, the “collaborative and
communal qualities of social networking services” can also be compared with that of an
online community interface.
Conversely, another participant (an Access to Higher Education learner) argued that “It isn't
simply a replacement for a phone call or face to face conversation. Understanding what it
does ‘uniquely’ is key to incorporating it in education in a way that isn't superficial or,
frankly, distracting.” In fact, according to ChildWise, most teenagers spent most of their time
online as a procrastinating tool, even as a break between face-to-face socialising (ChildWise,
2001).
The issue of teenagers conversing online, in help forums, for example (where their online
advisor is often a stranger) has been documented in American feature films such as Men
Women and Children (2014), directed by Jason Reitman. This proves that safeguarding your
learners online is now, and will continue to be, a dominant issue which needs addressing;
ideally from the outset (e.g. before your learners engage with the e-learning package).

Context of the study: Contextualising College A
In order to contextualise College A appropriately, this institution will be described against
several reference points from the Literature Review. These are as follows:
Distance Learning
Distance learning is one way of [designing the curriculum] but making more effective
use of social media platforms may now be essential if colleges are to keep up to
speed.
(The Education Foundation, 2011, p. 55)
Although College A does not offer any distance learning courses specifically, learning from a
distance (or away from the campus) is strongly encouraged for every course the learner joins;
to some extent. This is due to the fact that College A have fully embraced the FELTAG
report (FELTAG, 2013) in as much as every learner is expected to continue with a portion of
their learning online, away from the direction of their tutor. This package of e-learning should
be easy to access and interact with and it is expected this aspect of the course will make up
25% of the learner’s learning experience. Offering a compulsory segment of online learning,
as an integrated part of a learner’s course, is a movement in line with current thinking on the
use of technology in both FE and HE today.
Mair, for instance, firmly believes that “technology” can improve how a learner reflects on
his or her writing (Mair, 2012) and learning can easily be translated into an online format,
such as through the use of blogs (Mair, 2012, p. 148) (Richardson, 2006, p. 38). However,
some learners may need to be “persuaded,” or explicitly taught, “to develop [their potentially]
adaptive learning” skills (Mair, 2012, p. 150). Therefore, the “expertise” our learners may
have adopted from their personal utilisation of the internet may need to be expertly

scaffolded; so they are taught how to apply their prior knowledge to an online learning space,
for educational purposes.
Asynchronous learning
Within College A, the learners are expected to log onto to their iGCSE English Google
Community page, at least once a week, outside the lesson. This can be performed
asynchronously so there is no requirement for the group to log on, outside the lesson, as a
collective. When the learners first meet their respective Tutors, the Tutors meet with each
learner (on a one-to-one basis) in order to build a successful Group Profile for each class they
teach. Where possible, the tutors embed their discussion, of e-learning, into the initial target
setting data itself. The learners are requested to contribute to the community, in whatever way
they feel comfortable. If the learners fulfil their targets, this is just one strategy the tutor can
adopt; by monitoring the learner levels of engagement with the community.
Below is an excerpt from a Class Profile for an Access to Higher Education Diploma group,
studying iGCSE English. The e-learning targets have been highlighted in yellow.
Student Profile
- Qualifications on Entry
- Level of English Proficiency
- Age and family background
- Career and educational aspirations
Targets Set for iGCSE English
This should be agreed between the
Tutor and Learner, within the first 4
weeks of starting the course.
Student A is 23 years old and she has never studied
GCSE / iGCSE English before. Student A is originally
from Ghana and she attended an international school
where the first language spoken was English. Student
A would like to use her C grade, for iGCSE English,
as a transferable qualification straight into university.
Student A also works as a Medication Technician, in
Virginia Water.
1. To correctly stick to the same
tense throughout my piece of
writing. 2. To work on my minor
grammatical mistakes and achieve
full marks in grammar. 3. Try to
check and contribute to the iGCSE
English Google Community at least
once a week.

Student G works at the college as both a Job Coach
in the Foundation Dept. and she also teaches Italian
in the evening. Last year, she also successfully
achieved her PTLLs. She has put her study of the
PGCE on hold for the moment in order to concentrate
on her English. She studied with Tim Boyd last year
(iGCSE English) and achieved a Grade D (summer
2015). Student G is doing the November retake and
she's also attending the additional session.
1. To revise key vocabulary terms
from the exam papers and employ
this in her own writing 2. To
experiment with her vocabulary
through the use of the Farlex
Dictionary App (explore word
origins) 3. To make sure my tenses
and grammar is 100% accurate.
Student H has just turned 24. She lives in Bracknell
and she gets public transport to and from college
(with some subsidies from Student Services). Student
H previously studied GCSE English (2008-2009) and
she achieved a D grade. Student H works at [a
hospital] full-time as a Healthcare Assistant. She has
previous experience in hospitality and telecoms but
she really enjoys working in healthcare. She's
studying a full-time Access course in Health. Student
H was born in [sic] but she came to the U.K. when
she was 9 years old. Originally, she attended [sic]
1. Continue to regularly access the
iGCSE English Google Community
and comment once a week on a
helpful resource (or alternate link).
2. Consciously always proof read
everything for SPAG 3. For the
Speaking and Listening exam, we'll
aim for a B grade.
Student I is 31 years old and she works in [sic] as a
Support Worker in residential home. She's trying to
get these reduced at the moment in order to fit
around her studies. Student I was born in Zimbabwe
and she came to the U.K. in 2001. Student I
previously studied Functional Skills English Level 2
(under the direction of Tutor Y through the NOCN
exam board). Student I has four children and a
husband to look after.
1. Continue to regularly access the
and comment once a week on a
helpful resource (or alternate link).
2. Actively utilise the SPAG
resources online in order to help
you to self-correct. 3. Purchase
and use the lessons the
recommended SPAG guide (CGP
booklet) from the community.
Student J's first language is Nepalese. She first
arrived in England in April 2011. Student J is 23 years
old. She lives in [sic] and commutes by train. Student
J lives with her parents. Student J has no
dependents.
1. In order to improve on written
grammar, purchase the CGP
SPAG guide to use both at home
and in lessons 2. Work through the
paragraphing guides, from Google
Drive, to help you consider
carefully how you paragraph 3.
Use an online dictionary and
thesaurus, both in and outside
lessons, to help improve on your
vocabulary

Student K is originally from Nepal. She is currently 22
years old. She came to the UK in 2013. Student K
lives in [sic], within walking distance of the college.
Student K lives with her family. Student K studied
iGCSE English at the college here last year and
achieved a D grade.
1. Practice my grammar using
Murphy's guide 2. Remember to
check (and respond to posts) on
the iGCSE English Language
community at least once a week 3.
Find exemplary responses to task,
on the community and compare
this with your own writing. Use this
writing as a model to improve your
own.
Student M is 28 years old and he is currently studying
the Level 3 Music programme. His tutor is [sic].
Student M is originally from France so he uses
English as a second language. Student M has studied
English before, at a higher level, in France but he
didn't complete the programme.
1. Borrow the official coursebook
(as recommended on the
community) 2. Actively engage
with revision materials, advertised
on the community page, by
highlighting key information at
home as well as making notes. 3.
Pay particular attention to
exemplary candidate scripts
posted on the community - and ask
yourself 'why did this learner
achieve a higher grade'?
Student N was born in Nepal and she came to the UK
in 2013. Student N studied iGCSE English here at the
college before and she achieved a Grade D. She was
taught by [sic]. Student N is 21 years old and she
lives in [sic] (walking distance from the college).
Student N lives with her family.
1. To e-mail your Tutor, in
advance, if you're ever unable to
attend a lesson (attendance target:
90%). 2. Check the iGCSE English
Language community at least once
a week.
Student O is 27 years old and she is studying the full-
time Access to Midwifery course. Student O lives in
[sic] and commutes into [sic] to attend college.
Student O's education is primarily from outside the
UK and this is the first time she's studied English in
England. Student O hopes to go onto university, with
her C grade from iGCSE English.
1. Always attend my lessons 2.
Alert your English Tutor, 24 hours
in advance (via e-mail), if you're
unable to attend a lesson; so that
your absence can be authorised.
Also make sure you catch-up on
any work missed 3. Visit the
at least once a week, outside the
lesson.
Student P was originally born in Italy. Student P also
works for the college as an LSA (CCPW - 37 hours a
week) within LLDD and Foundation. Student P arrived
in the UK in September 2013. Since Student P has
been in England, she has studied Functional Skills
English at Level 1. Student P has also passed
Functional Skills Mathematics at Level 2. In addition
to Student P's LSA duties, she also studies GCSE
1. Analyse the criteria in order to
see how you can progress 2. At
least once a week check the
and find exemplary material

Maths (Higher Tier) and Access to Nursing. Student P
has no dependents currently.
For each learner, asynchronous engagement with the e-community has been discussed and at
least one target has been recorded; which is linked to the e-learning aspect of the learner’s
The lifelong learning sector
The learners are expected to utilise their e-learning within not just the current course they are
enrolled on but also with their future courses, whether this is undertaken at university (or
otherwise). At College A, we also encourage the learners to adopt the same online
approaches, with their work, in the workplace itself. Therefore, the e-learning skills should be
transferred into an employment or professional setting. The technological enhancements to
the course are also documented within every Scheme of Learning (SOL). The question posed,
at the start of every SOL, is “How will you integrate technology into your learners’ course
and what will your key tools be?” For the iGCSE English course, the following was agreed
collaboratively among all the tutors:
Our key tools will be:
Google Drive (for linking resource folders and sharing resource links)
Google Communities (for communicating with our learners both in and
outside lessons)
Google Classroom (for setting deadlines / setting up assignments and
collecting this in. The Turn it in software may be used a secondary issue in
order to clarify any plagiarism issues)
ProMonitor for recording any concerns about my learners
Google Docs as a live WP package

Based on the overarching targets stated above, it is clear that e-learning is adopted by the
tutor both for their learner administration (e.g. documenting notes online about the learner)
and for delivering the iGCSE English qualification. Moreover, technology is embedded into
teaching and learning with reference to assessment tracking and feedback. At College A, “we
foster a culture of enterprise that develops agile enterprising people who add value to
organisations and communities” (Activate Learning, 2014) and this forms part of the agenda,
from the whole group of colleges, which falls in line with our lifelong learning policy.
Online learning vs. traditional learning
“This is the start of an incremental journey for online learning.”
(Activate Learning, 2015)
College A recommend a blended approach to learning so the learner is exposed to a mixture
of both online learning and traditional learning. Often, the online learning is introduced in the
traditional classroom so that the learner can continue with their e-learning asynchronously.
Clarke makes a comparison between “traditional and e-learning skills” (Clarke, 2008, p. 3)
but, since publication, the traditional “reading skills” have now been replaced with the rise of
the e-reader e.g. reading on a tablet based device. Clarke also argues that learners need to be
self-motivated and skilled within their use of e-learning (Clarke, 2008, p. 6). Therefore, the
learners may need to be taught how to communicate through an e-community and this should
be nurtured by the Tutor.
Where Clarke separates traditional learning and online learning, Maier and Warren also
advise to aim for a truly blended approach (Maier & Warren, 2000, p. 12). This term has been

coined as “transformative learning” and, like Clarke, Maier and Warren assimilate this
movement with the motivated and independent learner. College A also ask the learners to be
both motivated and independent, through the use of technology, by publicising a bring-your-
own-device campaign (Maier & Warren, 2000, p. 31). Posters can be found on every floor, of
College A, requesting the learners to do so. By using a mixture of college-based ICT
facilities, and learners’ devices, College A avoids the trap of the “digital divide” (Wheeler &
John, 2008, p. 106) by embracing the role “mobile technology” (Wheeler & John, 2008, p.
111) can play within an education environment. Learner-led handheld e-learning, through the
use of portable devices, can also therefore extend to the home environment or an environment
away from the campus itself.
Technology vs. Motivation
If ICT is “used correctly,” for educational purposes, then it “can have a highly motivating
effect on student learning” (Brown, et al., 2013, p. 7). Indeed, College A is no exception to
this and practitioners are encouraged to present their online communities to our E-learning
Manager in order to see what could be further improved. When JK reviewed the iGCSE
English Community, the recommended structure for this review was adapted from Blass and
Davis (Blass & Davis, 2003, p. 232). With reference to JK’s observation of the learner-to-
learner interaction, on the online community, he argued that:
Familiarity is key but there will always be those who will be reticent and reluctant to
participate in educational online communities. The learners need to be introduced to
this technology as a place which supports their learning., They should feel safe in
what they post; in order to aid their learning.
(K, 2015)

Similarly, Wheeler and John also explain that pushing the educational “boundaries of the
traditional classroom may struggle at times to achieve success, but if that small success is
able to be sustained […] then the potential for transformation of the learning experience for
all students will be a likely outcome” (Wheeler & John, 2008, p. 104) but making the learners
feel safe is of utmost importance. When e-communities, within College A, are constructed by
Tutors there is an opportunity to write a subtitle. For the A Level English Literature and
Language community, the following subtitle is permanently fixed to the top left hand corner
of the community page: “A safe and secure learning space to share resources and tips for
Year 1 of the new A Level English Language and Literature course.” One way that all
educational communities are monitored, within College A, is that the posts and links are
privatised to the members themselves. Moreover, membership requests are monitored by the
tutors in order to double check the legitimacy of each individual.
Accessibility
Accessibility to the right ICT equipment always remains an issue, due to the sheer size of
College A and the vast array of courses we offer. Additionally, students demand for access to
ICT increases daily and “puts ever-increasing pressure on institutional resources” (Maier &
Warren, 2000). Within the last 2-3 years, College A have made huge investments in ICT by
allocating designated English and Maths room with access to up to ten Chrome Books in each
English and Maths resource room, across the college. In addition, the college library has
recently refurbished their entire learning space in order to comfortably accommodate both
fixed networked PCs as well as twenty Chrome Books. This enables the use of e-learning,
within an English classroom, to be more informal as opposed to moving the class to a
designated IT room. In order to assess the usefulness of these ICT resources, the learners

have been asked about their use of the English and Maths Chrome Books, within the student
questionnaire.

Methodology
An Introduction
It is important to reiterate my overall research objectives at this juncture. These are as
follows:
 To measure the effectiveness of the online community for an iGCSE English cohort
 To measure whether the quality of the learning has been enhanced, through the
established use of the online community
In order to validate these research objectives, I needed to collect a sizeable sample of
learners’ views. In addition, I needed to gain staff feedback through the analysis of several
interviews. From collecting this data, it was then possible to ascertain how online
communities are utilised across the college; as the staff interviewed were involved in e-
learning not just under the umbrella of iGCSE English. From my observations of how
learners engaged with the community, over a period of nine months, I chose to interview one
learner who was a dominant voice on the iGCSE English community. This learner was also
selected because she subscribes and participates within several other educational online
communities, within College A.
The rationale behind conducting a mixture of both questionnaires and interviews is that some
questions, for consideration, did not fit into a discrete questionnaire-reply box so the
interviews offered more detailed responses. Therefore, the questionnaire was produced in
order to reliably report on the learners’ views. Also, by offering the questionnaire to the
entire cohort, via the community, I was able to accurately represent the cohort’s views overall
as the response was favourable. The interview questions enabled the participants to discuss
how they contributed to the e-learning of College A generally. It did not limit the participant

to a narrow portrayal of College A’s opportunities, to engaging with e-learning, yet the
iGCSE English Google community remained the underpinning theme of the fully structured
interviews; with both staff and the learner discussed.
The Context of the Questionnaires
In total, sixty-nine learners responded to the questionnaire which was advertised on the
iGCSE English community. This is representative of approximately 6% of the iGCSE
English cohort. It is also important to explain there was not targeted sampling as the learners
were free to participate in the questionnaire, if they so wished.
The questionnaire data was collected in the summer of 2015 approximately four weeks before
the learners’ final examination, for the qualification. The first questionnaire entry was
recorded on 30th
April 2015. The questionnaire was openly advertised as a piece of research
which would contribute to my Masters in Education as opposed to an end-of-year review, of
the iGCSE English course. Moreover, there was no requirement to complete the questionnaire
but the learners did need to be logged into their institutional Google accounts in order to
complete the questionnaire. The learners’ identities were not revealed but their responses
were automatically tabulated against their learner ID.
In terms of where the data collection took place, the asynchronous access to the questionnaire
allowed the learners to access this off campus, if they so wished and outside their iGCSE
English lessons. However, the academic term ended at the end of June and this is when the
advertisement to complete the questionnaire, from the community, was unpinned and
therefore declassified on the community page. The final timestamp tracked the 69th
respondent as entering their final questionnaire entry on 18th
June 2015. This tight timeframe
was specifically introduced otherwise the learners’ reflection on the course, if requested
several months later, may have been inaccurate. It was important that the learners were

allowed to participate four weeks prior, to their exam, as this allowed them to reflect on the
full academic year.
The Context of the Interviews
The interviews were fully structured and the questions were submitted two weeks in advance
of the interviews taking place. Each participant was made aware of, in writing, that they
could withdraw at any time from the interview and each interview was conducted outside the
term-time calendar in July 2015. As College A was still open to staff and students, the
interviews took place on the college campus. In order to produce a comparative study, of the
views of both the staff and the learner, the questions asked were extremely similar but, for the
student interview, the wording was re-formulated into order to reflect the ability of the
learner.
Research Setting
As part of the research setting, it is important to establish why my learners require e-learning
(specifically an e-community) as an embedded part of their iGCSE English course. There are
ten contextual factors to consider which have been exemplified below.
Reason I) Limited Guided Learning Hours
For this particular study, I would like to focus on specifically the C/D borderline learners for
iGCSE English because these learners only receive ninety minutes of tuition time a week for
thirty lessons a year. Our exam, Cambridge International Examinations, state the following,
regarding the recommended Guided Learning Hours:

Cambridge iGCSE syllabuses are designed on the assumption that candidates have
about 130 guided learning hours per subject over the duration of the course, but this is
for guidance only. The number of hours required to gain the qualification may vary
according to local curricular practice and the learners’ prior experience of the subject.
from: http://www.cie.org.uk/images/128363-2015-syllabus.pdf p.3
Our learners therefore, in total, receive forty-five hours’ worth of tuition time across the year
and this is not including the number of authorised absences an iGCSE English learner may
suffer across the academic year. If CIE’s GLH (Guided Learning Hours) recommendation is
used as a comparative measure, then this means our learners lose eighty-five hours of guided
learning, across the year. This equates to losing 65% of tuition time. Therefore, there is a
greater ownership on the learner to independently study between 2.5 hours to 3 hours a week.
This type of cohort (e.g. the C/D borderline learners) unfortunately lack independent study
skills and therefore may very well need a prescribed self-study tool which they can access
online interactively. The resources need to also be cumulatively introduced in order to allow
the learners to produce a portfolio of work which they can access both in and outside the
lessons. Henceforth, the issue surrounding a lack of GLH was one of my principal reasons for
introducing a compulsory e-learning package to my iGCSE English learners.
Reason II) Asynchronous Live Modelling and Feedback
Writing reflections is time consuming, and novices can be deterred by the nebulous
nature of the traditional approach, particularly when these are assessed.
(Mair, 2012, p. 150)

Often, a learner may struggle with the overall structure of their writing. This becomes a
particular issue if the learner has been asked to complete a past paper question which may
contain a complex rubric. Through the utilisation of e-learning, within the lesson itself, the
tutor can demonstrate a live online structure. For example, crafting a topic sentence.
Moreover, differentiation can be integrated through the prior sharing of structural models.
This can be integrated into the learner’s personalised live Google Doc. Once the learner has
demonstrated partial progress, on their written task, then the Tutor will synchronously
demonstrate how to modify their written rhetoric. This may take the form of paying closer
attention to their punctuation, tense use, vocabulary and so on. Once the piece is finished and
has been fully reviewed by the Tutor (in the presence of the Learner), the Tutor may choose
to upload the learner’s piece of work as an exemplar piece, on the iGCSE English
Community. The e-learning element, of the iGCSE English course, therefore becomes two-
fold:
1. Learner use of Google Docs for live reading and writing activities with planned
interventions and tutorials (built-in directly with the Tutor);
2. Tutor or learner upload of learner work to the iGCSE English course (with permission
from the original author) which gives ample opportunity for peer assessment.
Reason III) Online Communication with Peers Across Vocational Pathways
Within my current role, I mainly support the Hair, Hospitality, Therapy, Tourism and
Performing Arts (HHTTP) faculty which hosts a broad range of vocational learners who have
enrolled on the following vocational courses:
 Hairdressing as well as Hair and Media Make-up

 Hospitality (also known as Chef and Restaurant and Professional Cookery) This is,
like the Hairdressing course, a service level course where the learners are expected to
engage with members of the public within the college restaurant
 Travel and Tourism
 Beauty Therapy
 Performing Arts
Often, learners are taught in their discrete subject areas so a Performing Arts learners will not
have an opportunity to interact with a Beauty Therapy learner, unless they meet on a social
level (away from their prescribed learning zones). With reference to the way the learners are
taught for English and Mathematics, the organisation of these sub cohorts is much the same
(with occasional mixed groupings) so the idea behind offering the iGCSE English Google
Community to all creates the opportunity for learners to communicate and network online,
outside the classroom. After all, these vocational groups are still unified under one academic
qualification: their iGCSE English course.
Creating opportunities for learners to engage online is very useful in the Spring and Summer
Term as we have a select number of learners, every year, who are entered for the Extended or
Higher Paper. Often, these Extended Learners may stretch over several subject areas and no
specific ‘Higher Tier’ group can be offered as tiers of entry are not decided until early Spring.
If these learners find it difficult to meet face-to-face, away from the traditional English
lesson, they can use the community to discuss their learning. Such was the case with two of
my Extended learners: one learner was studying a Level 2 Chef & Restaurant course and the
other was joined to a Level 3 Performing Arts group but her main enrolment was a Pre-
Access to Higher Education Diploma course. During the week, prior to the final examination,
these learners swapped revision tips and resources they had found independently. I

occasionally chimed in with some additional links and then these learners commented on
these links collaboratively. As these links were shared publicly, this benefitted other
Extended iGCSE English learners.
Reason IV) Homework Reminders and Absence
With reference to managing online communication with my learners, I have noticed that
replying directly to a learner in a static e-mail can sometimes be a burden on my time so, for
the sake of time economy, I often reply to the e-mail directly with a Google Drive or Google
Doc/Slide link. Alternatively, I explain the home learning task has already been posted on the
community. In order to help the absentee swiftly navigate to the right information, I
sometimes tag them into the post or pin the post so it appears at the top of the community
page.
Having a visual interactive community page shows that the learner never has to miss the
course content. However, the learner shouldn’t assume the Google Slide Presentation will
replace their attendance to the class itself. In order to achieve a full blended effect, the learner
must attend every English lesson and continue their work at home, online.
Reason V) Opportunities for Group Writing through Co-authorship
In order to enable my learners, to feel more confident with interacting with the e-learning
element of the course, it is important to offer several online writing projects; where multiple
authors can interact with the document synchronously and asynchronously.
Often, a typical Level 2 C/D borderline iGCSE English learner will be faced with an exam
question and will swiftly abandon any attempt to respond. A good example of a ‘word-heavy’

tightly structured Writing Question has been taken from a specimen 2015 CIE Core Paper
and presented below:
Question 2
Imagine that you are Will Randall, the writer of Passage A. After the end of
term assembly, you decide that you will definitely stay on and work as a
teacher in the school. When you return home that evening you write your
journal entry for the day.
In your journal entry you should:
• give your impressions of the children and their parents
• explain your reasons for wanting to work at the school
• express any concerns you may have about next term.
Base your journal entry on what you have read in Passage A, but do not
copy from it.
Be careful to use your own words. Address each of the three bullets.
Begin your journal entry: ‘As soon as the end of term assembly began I
knew that I wanted to work in this school…’.
Write about 200 to 300 words.
Up to 10 marks are available for the content of your answer, and up to 5
marks for the
quality of your writing.

This is a lexically dense question and it would perhaps discourage even a secure C grade
iGCSE English learner. However, by using a mixture of group work (in the classroom) and
access to Information and Learning Technology (ILT), the group can improve their
confidence by collaboratively building a cohesive answer. Often, I group learners together in
teams of three and each team member is assigned a particular bullet point, from the rubric of
the question. I then model how to plan each bullet point. The learners are given a short
timeframe to adapt their bullet points into full sentences and they are later taught how to
eventually expand these points into full paragraphs. Moreover, I can discuss the same exam
text (attached to the past paper question) and model live annotating. The learners then
continue to engage with the interactive features of the software by adding their own
comments; where they are encouraged to analyse the language of key quotations they have
selected. With the next group of learners, I teach, this group are encouraged to edit and reply
to the original comment. This creates a more effective way of analysing the key quotation as
well as offering an alternative way of examining the quotation. Such group live writing often
gives the learners the confidence to engage with highly complex exam questions and texts.
Reason VI) Teaching ESL and ELL learners a First Language Qualification
College A, due to its geographic location, attracts a sizeable proportion of learners with
English as a Second Language (ESL) as well as English Language Learners (ELL) e.g.
learners whose first language is not English and who are in the process of learning English.
For College A, these learners mostly derive from the Nepalese community. It is vitally
important, therefore, to aid both ESL and ELL learners with their word choices as they often
do not have the confidence to self-select a particular word or perhaps a powerful synonym in
order to impress the examiner. But, through the use of Google Docs, I am able to show the
learners how to highlight a word and define it, within the e-dictionary feature which is

integrated into their word document (Zhang, et al., 2007, p. 626). The word is often defined
grammatically with multiple meanings attached but expressed in a simplified fashion, for
easy-of-reading. In addition to this feature, the learners can also review and conduct further
research on the list of synonyms they are offered, again through the e-thesaurus link on
Google. By conducting additional research on how these synonyms can be expressed in a
sentence, for example, the ESL/ELL learner will feel empowered to choose an appropriate
synonym, as a replacement of the basic word they have already used.
The main reason why I have chosen the Google Docs programme, for the iGCSE English
coursework, is (unlike Microsoft Word) it does not include an automatic grammar or spell
check feature so Spelling, Punctuation and Grammatical errors (SPAG) are not openly
notified, during the live writing process. By not offering this service, the learners are both
encouraged to review the content of their work independently and, by deactivating the SPAG
audit, we are also conforming to exam board (CIE) requirements.
Reason VII) Online AutoSave Features and Accessibility Monitoring
With reference to making the iGCSE English Coursework Portfolio, I decided to move to a
compulsory online version, for each learner. Moving to a paperless classroom was a dramatic
yet necessary step in order to efficiently monitor the learners’ interaction with the document,
outside the classroom. Times and dates can easily be reviewed under the Revision History
section in order to ascertain learner commitment outside the lesson.
An added benefit to using Google Docs, as opposed to Microsoft Word, is the document
saves automatically so the learner can safely type away in the knowledge that all of their
work is stored securely and it is constantly saving. The only instance whereby data may be

lost is if internet connectivity ceases but there is an offline mode the learner can access.
Learners can continue to work on their coursework via their Smartphones, provided that they
have a healthy internet allowance linked to their personal contracts. In this circumstance, Wi-
Fi would not be needed as the learners would be streaming their work live via 3G/4G
technologies (depending on the network coverage in that particular area).
Reason VIII) Submitting Learner Coursework Assignments to an Online Plagiarism
Checker Efficiently and Successfully
The plagiarism checker College A utilise is an online facility so, if the learner can swiftly
produce their online coursework, it makes the submission of the work more efficient. Due to
the way the Tutor has set-up the live version of the coursework portfolio, the learner can
easily locate the document on his or her learner drive. Provided the learner logs into both the
coursework portfolio and the plagiarism software simultaneously, all that is required is a
simple copy of the coursework and paste it into the learner’s Turnitin plagiarism account
(again, this has been set-up by the Tutor). The only issues the learner may have is using two
different logons for two different websites but the Tutor can create learner Turnitin accounts
with default passwords in order to prevent any logon problems.
If the learner had written the coursework by hand, they would physically have to type every
word into the plagiarism website in order to submit the piece.
Reason IX) Learner Recall and Coursework Portfolio Maintenance
When the tutor only has an opportunity to see the class once a week and the tutor does not
have a permanent classroom, the learner’s maintenance of an online portfolio allows the work
to digitally travel with both the tutor and the learner. In addition, as the learner becomes
aware of building up a portfolio for evidence, for the coursework assignments, they are also

required to review the feedback (from the previous lesson) and act on this accordingly.
Within College A, the learner also may prioritise his or her full-time vocational programme
therefore the upload of the online coursework portfolio presents the learner with a visual
representation of his or her progress from the previous lesson.
Reason X) The Portfolio as a Transition Piece Between Home and College
This relates to learner recall, from Reason IX, and the online auto save features as identified
under Reason VII. It is of the utmost importance to allow the learners the opportunity to
continue their work outside the lesson, without fear of losing their work. By offering access
to the coursework portfolio both synchronously and asynchronously, the tutor is able to
successfully create and maintain a unified platform between the classwork and homework.
Research Paradigm
In order to ascertain whether an established online community can make a valid contribution
to a learner’s iGCSE English studies, my approach (Blaxter, et al., 2010, p. 61) was to
conduct a questionnaire and offer this to as many iGCSE English learners as possible
(potentially the entire cohort). From the evidence, is it important to make rational
justifications and determine the level of effectiveness the online community has made, for the
Level 2 English learners of College A. From the presentation and analysis of the data, a set of
statements will be generated which highlight the common variables of synchronous and
asynchronous online community learning.
However, not every aspect of online learning can be statistically analysed. Therefore, the
interviews were conducted in order to convey an interpretivist approach (Blaxter, et al., 2010,
p. 61) (Biggam, 2011, p. 137). Although each interview was fully structured, the questions
were specifically designed to entice an open response. As interviewee responses can vary, the

interpretivist analysis method forms that of discourse analysis. The themes of analysis will be
carefully considered against the topics first introduced, in the Literature Review. The
procedures adopted, from the discourse analysis, will mainly stem from the Basics of
Qualitative Research (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, pp. 85-106).
Research Design
As discussed, my design frames adopted consist of both an online questionnaire, which was
distributed (and made available, to the vast majority of the iGCSE English cohort) on the
online community itself, two fully structured interviews and two semi-structured interviews.
This included interviewing three members of staff and one adult learner.
Embedded into the design frame of the online questionnaire (Appendix 1) was the appeal for
opinions and attitudes of the online community. This was measured by requesting a
numbered rating, using the Likert scale approach but, attached to each quantitative-ranked
question, an opportunity was presented to provide an open comment. Gaining both a
quantitative and qualitative perspective, on the iGCSE English online community, allowed
me to create a holistic analysis of the learners’ true opinions. The learners were encouraged to
complete these questionnaires, in their own time, in order to allow them to fully consider
their responses. It is also important to note that, by offering both an online questionnaire and
selected interviews, it was not my intention to mix the assumptions of my design frame.
Therefore, the questionnaire analysis will remain wholly interpretivist.
Research Methods
Collecting the results from the questionnaires was performed with efficiency and accuracy as
the responses (both numerically and lexically-based) were automatically tabulated and, to a

certain extent, analysed by the Google Sheets software. However, all software analysis has
been reviewed in line with my original research design and aim (Bell, 2010, p. 121).
The interviews were organised in consecutive stages, in order to provide each participant, the
opportunity to prepare for the interview. This was completed using the following steps:
1. Approximately one week before the interviews were confirmed, the interviewees were
formally invited via a calendar request. This clarified the date, time and room. These
logistical factors were previously agreed verbally, with each interviewee, based on
mutual availability.
2. In an e-mail, a link to the calendar request was provided alongside the list of questions
proposed. In addition, the interviewees were given editing rights to the online
document where they could make notes and respond, prior to the interview. This
allowed each interviewee to build their response and formalise the process. The
interviewer then referred to these notes, during the interviews, in case the interviewee
faltered.
3. The online document, which detailed the interview questions, also included:
i) The structure of the interview;
ii) How the evidence will be used (for this research project);
iii) An online link to my Research Proposal. This was incorporated to enable each
participant to see my aims and objectives, behind the research project;
iv) An online link to my progress on the Literature Review;
v) How the interview will be recorded (e.g. through the use audio and then a
written transcription);
vi) A promise of confidentiality, with reference to the identity of the interviewee
and College A;

vii) The opportunity for the interviewee to withdraw consent either before, during
or after the interview.
In addition, after each interview was transcribed, each interviewee was given access to both
the summarised notes and each transcription; with the opportunity to make any additions.
Again, this was offered electronically as the interviewees were given the right to comment on
both their summarised responses as well as the full transcriptions. A full transcription of one
of the interviews can be viewed in Appendix 2.
Validity and Reliability Issues
With reference to any validity issues, I was able to minimise any opportunity for duplicated
responses or random responses by only allowing access, to the questionnaire, via the learners’
individual Google college account. These institutional logons are secure to the extent that no
learner could access the questionnaire from their personal Gmail account. For the
interviewees, they were fully involved in the recording of the interviews. This involved
having the opportunity to edit the structure of the questions as well make any alterations to
the transcriptions. Throughout my research, I adopted a high level of criticality through my
utilisation of a fully structured interview schedule (Bell, 2010, p. 119). In addition, I
conducted the research as a master’s university student as opposed to a lecturer of College A
(Bell, 2010, p. 53). Moreover, I designed my questionnaire and interviews to be highly
credible, so the interpretations can be measured against the themes discussed in both the
Literature Review and Context of the Study: Contextualising College A.
Ethical Issues
I teach a sizeable proportion of the iGCSE English cohort and, because this research project
was conducted by myself, the learners may have felt the need to respond to the questionnaire

due to the fact they wanted to please me, as their teacher. However, when the questionnaire
was introduced I was particularly conscious of introducing myself as a researcher, from my
university, as opposed to a lecturer within the organisation.
Prior to releasing the questionnaire online, I sought advice and confirmation from my
immediate line manager that he was happy to advertise the questionnaire on the community
itself. Moreover, this research projected was funded by College A, and a series of research
proposals were written in order to narrow my research aim and objectives. Therefore, the
Assistant Principal confirmed she was happy for me to carry out any research within College
A provided that I share my expertise via our internal CPD programme: Pass it On. A record
of my application, with the signature of my manager, can be reviewed in Appendix 4.
Furthermore, it was also made very clear to the learners that the completion of the
questionnaire did not contribute directly to their iGCSE English course and the completion
was entirely voluntary. A copy of the updated Ethics Form is enclosed under Appendix 3.

Presentation of the Data
Context Prior to Data Collection
The background, to this research, was born out my experiences of working with a wide
variety of learners within College A. The programme on offer, as the compulsory (for under
19s) Level 2 English course, did not suit the background of some of my learners, especially
with reference to their Qualifications on Entry (QoE). I knew that, in order to successfully
introduce and teach this iGCSE programme, I would need to be proactive with the way I
embedded e-learning into my own pedagogy and, likewise, encourage my learners to do the
same.
Context of the Data Gathering Period
The research took place during the Summer of 2015 at my place of work. The learners were
encouraged to complete an online questionnaire but this was not compulsory and it was
something the learners were asked to complete in their own time. Several staff were also
interviewed, for this project, as well as one adult learner who was studying the Pre-Access
course, at the time.
Why collect data on this issue?
I decided to collect data on this issue primarily because there has been little research
conducted into how FE colleges implement e-learning. There is a great deal of policy
documentation (The Education Foundation, 2011) (Kineo, 2013) (FELTAG, 2013) (The
Education Foundation, 2014a) (The Education Foundation, 2014b) (Department for Business
Innovation and Skills, 2015) (Thomson, et al., 2015) as well as how various lecturers
experiment with e-learning in a Higher Education environment (Jones, et al., 2004) (Sembi,

2012) (Mair, 2012) (Donlan, 2014) including how academics can build their own online
“personal networks” (Pataraia, et al., 2013). However, these is little evidence with reference
to academic lecturers working with vocational learners, on academic skills, in a vocational
FE college.
Key Participants Under Investigation
 The iGCSE English cohort from 2014-2015 (in terms of questionnaire data)
The following members of staff were also interviewed:
 An English Lecturer (Participant Y) who holds a pivotal role, in the college, for e-
learning (Anon, 2015)
 The E-Learning Manager for the college (K, 2015)
 The Pathways Manager for iGCSE English (E, 2015)
In order to gain a learner’s perspective, I also deliberately chose to interview an adult learner
(Participant X), with a strong online presence on the iGCSE English Google Community; at
the time.
Pivotal Variables
Please be aware that the cohort observed were still in the developmental stages of their
academic writing skills at the time. This may thereby affect the quality of the qualitative data
collated, from the questionnaire. In addition, approximately one third of these learners also
studied English as an Additional Language (EAL) so English was not their native language.
What is more, not all learners were forced to study the iGCSE English course. I taught one
group of learners, aged 19+, who voluntarily came to college (one evening a week) to study
the course. This select group, however, have been identified openly in the questionnaire data;
for demographic purposes.

Analysing the Data
A Multi-Analysis of the Interview and Questionnaire Data
Based on the two fully structured interviews conducted, with a leading practitioner of e-
learning (at College A) and a student leader of e-learning, it is highly appropriate for me to
offer a comparative analysis of the views presented, in both interviews. As offering a
comparative study was my intention, prior to conducting the interviews, I structured each list
of questions in a similar syntactical arrangement. Contextually, each interviewee was
interviewed separately, within a two-day timeframe, during July 2015. Each view has been
compared against the respective foci below. Each focus has been framed as a key theme.
These themes were taken from several interview questions; based on both the learner’s view
(Participant X) and the tutor’s opinion (Participant Y).
Foci I: FELTAG Recommendations
The issues raised from both interviews, with reference to the FELTAG recommendations,
were as follows:
 Encouraging English learners to independently study;
 The quality of learner e-tivities (Salmon, 2002); offered by both tutors and online
moderators.
Participant Y was excited, when the FELTAG recommendations were first published
(FELTAG, 2013, p. 7) and she was extremely pleased an official body had finally recognised
the value of technology, in the Further Education sector. Although Participant Y also cited
the report as “innovative,” she explained that the sector has “struggle[d]” to “implement [...]
some of these recommendations” (Appendix 2). With reference to how learners approach

their own studies, independent learning skills were highlighted as another contributing factor
for the amount of time a course can be dedicated to being hosted online:
Pure online learning requires a great level of self-direction and sort of independence
which [many] of our learners are in the process of developing.
Appendix 2
Participant Y criticised the 10% figure, published by FELTAG (FELTAG, 2013, p. 23) as
unclear and a “misjudgement.” This is because of the lack of clarity associated with how this
10% should be embedded so it is being used flexibly by institutions. This would thereby
make measuring the quality of e-learning, after the initial FELTAG report, extremely difficult
to monitor.
Similarly, Participant X agreed that both Tutors and Learners are now “involved in
technology,” within the FE sector but Participant Y warned that the techniques adopted vary
hugely. Participant Y cited good examples of “blended approaches” but she argued that some
practitioners offer the “content” and “assessment” in a static format. In summary, the
pedagogical e-learning strategies, some FE practitioners are now adopting, appear to “work
really well so we’re on that journey.” Despite this, Participant X stipulated that there are also
major gaps in adult learners’ e-literacy skills as “we didn’t learn the basics of technology
[when we were younger].” Participant X further admitted, prior to studying at College A, she
“didn’t know how to use [e-technology] properly.” Therefore, gaps in both teachers and
learners’ e-skills rapidly need addressing in order to create a fully blended approach.

Participant X’s requirement for further training, on the use of e-learning, reflects the
questionnaire data as nearly a third of all iGCSE English learners sampled did not receive a
comprehensive Google induction workshop, before their iGCSE English course commenced:
Foci II: Encouraging Learners to Embed E-Learning via Access Provision
II.1 – The Learners Perspective on Embedding E-learning in the English ‘classroom’
Participant Y incorporates e-learning in a variety of ways, namely through the use of the
following technology/methods…
 Mini iPads
 QR Codes
 Photographs (made available digitally, with the added opportunity to manipulate and
label)
 Videos (including Participant Y’s hosting of her own YouTube Channel)
 Quizzes
 Drawings
 Piktocharts
 Smores (an online newsletter template)
 Google including Google+, Google Sites, Google Classroom and Google Docs
Participant Y argued that multimodal approaches improve engagement and encourage
differentiation. This is because learners engage, in e-learning, in a variety of ways. Hence,
utilising one platform could limit the learner extremely. A classic example is how Participant
Y encourages her Level 3 English learners to use Twitter, partly because the challenge
derives from the character limitation of the Tweet. Similarly, Participant X enjoys
researching but she overly relies on popular search engines. However, Participant X also
utilises online communication, with both her peers and tutors, as another e-tool for learning.

Due to Participant X’s EAL, she also discussed the use of grammar checking websites as she
believes it improves the technical accuracy of her writing. To summarise, Participant X is
concerned with how to technically improve her writing and how to hone key internet search
terms whereas Participant Y is focused more on the overall design and how you can utilise a
wealth of e-tools in order to make the online learning space interesting, attractive and
accessible.
Moreover, Participant Y also agrees that communication is key and she enjoys responding to
her learners’ online questions and comments, through the use of her A Level English Google
Community (for example). Participant Y also cites multi-modal examples, in order to achieve
full integration:
using something like EdPuzzle or combining it with the community where they get to
share their responses, it just makes it ten times better in terms of their learning
experience because they’re not just watching it….it’s not just passive. They actually
get to actively engage with it
Appendix 2
Comparatively, Participant X remarked on incorporating e-learning, into her own learning, as
an enjoyable experience “because I learn how to find information or research.” She also
interpreted this question from a study skills perspective as opposed to Participant Y’s
pedagogical discussion. Another way of introducing multimodal learning is through the
introduction of Apps. Based on the questionnaire data, 91% of participants utilised the
Google Apps for their iGCSE English studies:

But, in order to ascertain as to why 9% did not engage with App learning, the feedback was
varied yet insightful:
 3 learners preferred computer screen learning. For example, using a traditional
networked PC or laptop / Chromebook. However, one of these learners said s/he
would like to experiment with tablet based learning (The Education Foundation, 2011,
p. 47);
 1 learner argued Apps are not as effective as using the traditional computer
programme (The Education Foundation, 2014b, p. 10);
 1 learner couldn’t afford to purchase a Smart Phone or a tablet device (The Education
Foundation, 2014b, p. 17);
 1 learner limits his/her iGCSE English learning to campus based learning where there
is always a campus based machine, to use.
II.2 - Encouraging learners in their e-learning endeavours

Within her interview, Participant X discussed the importance of modelling this positive e-
behaviour, for her peers, but she cited “age” as a negative impact on engaging with e-
technologies. Moreover, it also “depends on their personality and how people want to reach
out of their study.” With reference to Participant X’s vision, to ‘go further,’ she explicitly
makes the link between engaging with e-learning in the classroom and how technology is
utilised in the health industry (which is her industry of choice, for employment):
For me, what I need to study, I check on update news and they bring in new
technology for nursing and, from 2016, the tablet will be part of my learning for
nursing. They're going to start using it in hospitals. I need it to progress with my
career and I enjoy that. I think with my class for pre-access, we're all kind of middle
age. I would say like my friends who are 35 and they have teenager at home, doing all
this stuff for them. They didn't pay attention, they prefer just to sit in the class and
learn whatever the tutor teach them.
Research conducted, within Participant X’s field of career choice (nursing), has also revealed
the importance of “participative” and “community” based “learning” with reference to “social
engagement” and “collaborative working in an authentic practice environment” (Mayne, et
al., 2015, p. 164). Even before Participant X has transitioned into the workplace, she has
translated the “social” and team ethos of her profession with that of e-learning for academic
purposes; specifically, for iGCSE English. She therefore recognises e-learning as both a
transferable and social skill.
Participant X also makes an interesting distinction between teenagers and parents, with
reference to the varying levels of engagement. The questionnaire data is also differentiated

between teenagers and standalone (19+) learners. This was the only demographic information
required, from the completion of the online questionnaire. 10.3% of standalone learners
responded to the online questionnaire and 77.9% were full-time 16-19-year-old learners. A
small select group of staff (11.8%) also responded to the questionnaire. These statistics also
represent the size of the standalone group as adult learners (at College A) represent
approximately one quarter of the iGCSE English cohort.
Participant X believes that e-learning engagement reduces as the age of the learner increases.
She therefore assumes e-learning engagement is a generational issue. Her theory has been
tested and cross-tabulated against the questionnaire data. For example, the mean average of
the standalone learners’ rating, of the effectiveness of the iGCSE English online community
(Question 2 from Appendix 1), was 2.43. When this points score is compared with the Likert
scale criteria, it represents a borderline useful / no opinion response. Whereas, the mean
average of the 16-19 year olds rating, of the online community, was slightly more favourable
at 2.25. Notably, 65% of the full-time teenage learners found the online community either
extremely useful or very useful:

This proves that we need to engage our standalone learners more in e-learning. However, this
cohort is often marginalised by the college as the e-services are often closed when they attend
their evening classes, late in the evening. If the standalone learner wishes to improve his or
her e-learning, it may be extremely difficult to access campus services during the day, as
often standalone learners choose to study in the evenings because they hold full-time
employment during daylight hours.
The outcome of this is, as Participant X commented, the standalone learner will call upon the
teenager in the family to assist with e-learning. This has a direct link with the demographic,
as standalone learners often return to their education, at College A, after having a family.
This overreliance on the younger generation, teaching the older generation, is not always a
positive step. This is due to the fact the teenager may lose patience, with the parent /
standalone learner, due to being forced to take on the role as a e-learning instructor.
II.3 – Accessibility
Accessibility can be an issue for the minority of our learners and Participant Y solved this
problem with one of her learners who was unable to access the e-learning at home:
There was one student who had real difficulty accessing stuff at home and I had a
really old laptop […] I lent her that and that meant she could get online when she was
at home.
Appendix 2
This learner, like the learner cited in Foci II.1, may have not been able to purchase a laptop
(or tablet device) due to socio-economic circumstances. However, College A offers extended
opening hours on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, where the library is open until 7.00pm.
During these quiet twilight study hours, the learner is free to hire a library Chromebook or
utilise the networked PCs. These ICT facilities have only been installed in the last 12-18

months. Therefore, the hardware, and high-speed connectivity, allows the programmes to run
smoothly and efficiently.
Moreover, as cited in my Methodological Research Setting (Reason VI), the learner is
welcome to utilise their own Smart Phone data package in order to access the free Google
Apps including Chrome, Drive, Docs, Slides and Google+. Where the learner’s data package
may be limited, they can access free Wi-Fi via the Cloud, if they are working externally and
on the move. If the learner is on campus, they also have access to College A’s free Wi-Fi
(Ingle & Duckworth, 2013, p. 90).
With reference to portable device learning (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. 60), the iGCSE
English learners were also asked to rate the usefulness of the Google Learning Apps
(Question 7a from Appendix 1). As displayed in the histogram, below, the results were
varied:

However, it is safe to assume that the majority found the Apps useful, to a certain extent
(39%) but this percentage is distorted from the median value. This Category 3 equates to 24%
of respondents and it is my belief this ‘no opinion’ rating is associated with the learners’
accessibility of the Apps, both on and off campus. The learners may therefore be confusing
App performance from issues related to connectivity and the reliability of their Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) or Wi-Fi hotspots.
Participant X could very well represent the favourable 39% of learners as she discusses,
within her interview, her ease of accessing learning apps, whether this is via her home laptop
or from her Smart Phone. Participant X also actively engages with the ‘bring-your-own-
device’ College A wide-policy as she brings her laptop to every lesson. She arrives early to
every lesson in order to enable herself to set up her learner logon, to her Google Drive, and
Google+ profile. This is because she recognises e-learning is an embedded aspect of all of her
lessons.
However, not every iGCSE English learner feels confident with simultaneous multi-device
and multi-platform working, for educational purposes. Against Question 17 (Appendix 1),
one learner explained…
In many lessons [we] are required to use so many different technological devices,
[we] don't learn how to use them efficiently. Having to use google drive,
communities, emails and docs simultaneously can be very challenging for some
students.
II.4 - Planning for e-learning

Participant Y only makes homework available online and, by offering this element solely via
an e-learning platform, this interviewee creates a fully flipped learning environment. This has
been trialled through the introduction an online lesson, as opposed to the traditional
classroom-based lesson; where the learners engaged with the resources at home. This was
created synchronously so the entire group needed to be logged in at the same time and it was
also time limited. However, creating an audit of homework completions is still paramount to
the success of this flipped approach and Participant Y also argued that this alternative model
is not “sustainable […] all the time” as equipment needs to be booked and the learners do
need the face-to-face discussions with their peers and Tutor; in order to create a truly blended
approach. Therefore, flipped learning is a great e-learning strategy to experiment with but the
Tutor should aspire to create the ultimate blended model.
Moreover, planning for e-learning is linked explicitly to engagement. The learners need to
understand and appreciate the “relevance […] and the importance of [the e-learning element
as well as fully] buy into” the process. Engagement, according to Participant Y, is also linked
to improved independent e-learning as well as “personalised” learning. For example, offering
an e-tivity which may include a “video to watch” or a “document to read” does not engage
the learner, with the online activity as there is no opportunity or debate the material publicly
or privately online. Participant Y also argued that, if full e-personalisation is achieved, it is
because the Tutor has offered both “choice” and “variety” to the learners.
Conversely, Participant X focused on the study skills and argued that the Tutor needs to plan
foundation e-learning tutorials which helpfully explain “how to find” the most suitable
“resources.” This contrasts heavily with Participant Y’s emphasis on “choice” so the learner
needs to feel confident to make the right selection, after a formal introduction to the material.

These juxtaposing responses also reveal the key differences between a typical Level 2
(iGCSE) and Level 3 (A/AS Level) English learner.
Participant X also argued that she sometimes finds it difficult to make a distinction between
the “right” and wrong resources, for her e-tivities. She questioned the authenticity of some
resources she has found online and she often feels burdened by the wealth of online
resources, at her fingertips, when conducting an internet search on a specific topic.
With reference to both the existence and utilisation of the iGCSE English Learning Resource
Folder (available to all learners via their Google Drive), this has undergone extensive
redesign. This was based on learner feedback and the respondents to the questionnaire
favoured the resource folder considerably. In fact, 73% of respondents ranked the iGCSE
English Learning Resource Folder as both extremely useful and very useful. Of this 73%,
60% of this group found the resource folder to be extremely useful.

Therefore, for a Level 2 English learner, the resources are already provided and any
additional links are supplemented through the iGCSE English Google Community, as an
advertised post. And since this group was questioned, the look of the resource folder (as well
as the content) has been revised again, based on feedback from staff and Student Coaches as
well as the external changes to the iGCSE English course from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016.
Please find below two examples of two different design frames:
iGCSE English Support Folder (2015-2016) Cohort: The New Design

iGCSE English Learning Resource Folder (2014-2015) Cohort: The Original Design

In addition, the new and improved iGCSE English Support Folder has now been permanently
attached as fixed folder links to the iGCSE English Google Community, based on feedback
from the Assistant Principal of Teaching and Learning:
Foci III: Promoting E-tivities, Learner Contributions and the ‘Homework’ Label
III.1 - Promoting E-tivities for the Learners
Participant Y argued that it is important to utilise e-learning, in order to introduce the skills
required for a new topic or course. Where possible, the Tutor should be able to predict which
non-interactive elements of the course could be re-designed, as an engaging e-learning
activity. This could be completed on or off campus. By using social networking sites, for

educational purposes, the learners could even be introduced to each other online, prior to
physically meeting in the traditional campus-based learning space.
In addition, Participant Y emphasised the significance of e-upskilling the learners, prior to
undertaking any compulsory examinations or assessments. This is so that assessment tracking
can be fully embedded within e-learning. Comparatively, Participant X discussed the ease of
use for online programmes such as “Google Doc[s]” as opposed to “Microsoft [Word].” She
also cited Google learning as a “comfortable platform” to use. By using these programmes
and Apps, within her own learning, she believed it “helped [with her] understanding” of the
It is interesting how Participant Y interpreted the promotion of the e-tivities question
(Question 5 from Appendix 1) as an opportunity to discuss her e-learning as a designer.
Whereas Participant X commented on her e-learning as a user.
Furthermore, Participant X described herself as an “active” user on the iGCSE English
“community” as she enjoys “read[ing] through other students’ work”, on this public forum.
She also enjoys sharing what she has learned and examining her peers’ critiques of her work.
In conjunction with Participant Y’s encouragement of learners meeting online, Participant X
also enjoyed making “new friends,” on the community, “especially [so] close to the exam.”
Participant X’s interactions with her “new friends” is fully contextualised within the
Methodology sub-chapter entitled “Research Setting” under Reason III on pages 47 and 48.
Clearly, Participant X approaches the iGCSE English Google Community as a collaborative
environment as she explains that “we used to exchange our information about the question

and how to help each other.” Some learners do, however, struggle to engage with the online
community and, when the participants of the online questionnaire were asked to respond to
this concern, they discussed the following:1
o 17 learners expressed that some are distracted by other social networking sites e.g. by
discussing their social lives with friends online as opposed to using an educational
networking platform, like Google+ although one learner argued that “some […] find
both the sites useful”;
o 6 learners articulated it was due to lack of confidence online. Within this area, one
learner explained s/he reads the post but is uncertain of how to respond. Another
respondent explained the concern for having his/her work scrutinised publicly;
o 5 learners claimed the community layout was unimaginative and therefore didn’t
engage the members as well as it should;
o 5 learners explained that they are unsure how to participate. One learner said, “I think
when [the] iGCSE English Google Community was introduced, no one really sat
down and explained the concept and we had to figure it out on our own, which for
some learners that can be difficult”;
o 5 learners did not understand the value in engaging with online community learning,
partly because it could be viewed as “work” and therefore not “fun”;
o 4 learners stated some members may prefer using Google Drive or Google Classroom,
for their English studies (this is where the work is conducted online but not through a
public or social interface);
1
N.B. These statements have been ranked in order of popularity / mode.

o 3 learners admitted they do not access the community page frequently enough, from
home, and they have little time to fully consider the published material whist on
campus;
o 2 participants mentioned that some of her/his peers feel overwhelmed by the amount
of educational communities s/he is subscribed to;
o 2 learners commented it could be linked to accessibility issues outside the college (as
there is currently no remote provision for helping learners with their e-learning off
campus);2
III.2 - Active Learner Contribution
Participant X believes the purpose of the “community” is primarily linked to the art of
“learning,” sharing and engagement. She also inferred that, if you are a member, you need to
be “active” otherwise subscribing to this online resource is pointless. She explained her
reasons for joining as she wished to move beyond the restriction of the “one-hour class.” She
approached it like an “extra class” and used this opportunity to continue her dialogue with her
peers and tutor (Jones, et al., 2004, p. 99).
From the questionnaire, the respondents were also asked if they believed active learner
contribution, with the online community, correlated with academic achievement and the
potential improvement of their iGCSE English grade outcome. 82% agreed with this.
2
Individual concerns were not included as they could not be tallied or discussed as frequent concerns.

III.3 - Homework vs. Crafted E-tivities (Out-of-lesson E-learning)
Participant Y argued that there is a direct relationship with engaging through out-of-lesson
activities and future success: “by developing independence and research skills and learning
online [the learners are] going to be more-able to cope with the future.” She also mentioned a
recent example of encouraging a reluctant A Level English e-learner to blog. This form of
online writing was introduced as a transferable skill into journalism as this was the learner’s
ultimate career ambition. She inferred that blogging “develops their online presence and their
kind of voice.” Participant X conversely claimed the engagement, with the home learning, is
an advantage as the learners should be forced to complete their homework.
As a required home learning task, the iGCSE English cohort were required to continue their
coursework online, this year, for up to three hours a week. This was instructed to be
administered outside the confines of the iGCSE English classroom. Within the questionnaire,
the participants were asked if they found this feature of the course useful. 68% were in
agreement that the online coursework portfolio was both extremely useful and very useful.

Of this 68%, 92% believed the continued online access to the coursework folder had a direct
impact on their iGCSE English grade in as much as the availability of the e-learning, and the
interactivity, would have improved their end result.
Foci IV: Community Membership Populations
From the questionnaire, the learners were asked if community membership should exist as a
compulsory aspect of their iGCSE English course. 75% agreed that it should. With reference
to the minority 25%, three commonalities emerged against compulsory membership:
 5 learners explained the user may have problems accessing Google+, for iGCSE
English, and one learner enigmatically connected online learning with “cheating”
 2 learners agreed “it would be really helpful” to be a member but compulsory
membership may discourage participation;
 2 learners preferred the current voluntary membership policy;
 2 learners linked non-membership to “more independent learning.” This
controversially counteracts with Participant Y’s views that e-learning promotes
independence.
In line with these findings, Participant Y explained that factors such as the size of the
community cohort, as well as the required “level of engagement” will have a decided impact
on how the members interact with the online community. And, although addressing “500
students […] is fairly intimidating,” learners have to become comfortable with addressing a
large audience through social spheres such as “Twitter” for “professional networking”
purposes as this is swiftly becoming an online tool required in the modern world. It is thereby
becoming an inherent aspect of the digital culture.

Overall, Participant Y highlighted the importance of “develop[ing] their skills in
communicating with people they’ve never met before.” Ingle and Duckworth also point out
“the possibility and ease of online publication is empowering, but difficult to erase” (Ingle &
Duckworth, 2013, p. 32) and they suggest constructing a list of who you wish to follow, on
Twitter, gradually (Ingle & Duckworth, 2013, p. 71).
Moreover, Participant X also explained that increased membership, to an educational online
community, can create a burden for the primary moderator whereas smaller communities can
stimulate online engagement due to the concentrated audience. In line with Participant Y’s
view on the daunting task of addressing a large online audience, Participant X also described
her first iGCSE English Google Community posting as a “scary” experience but the replies
she received were complimentary. This immediately set her at ease as “everybody like[d] my
work.”
Foci V: Choosing the Right Social Networking Platform
Although some institutions have experimented with the use of Facebook, as an educational
community (The Education Foundation, 2014a) (Donlan, 2014, p. 574), Participant X argues
that Google+ should be separated from your “social life.” It can also help you to “manage
everything” such as an events tracking for revision workshops and exam dates. She also
argued that Facebook “is not possible to control” or manage, for online educational use.
Within the online questionnaire, the learners were asked to suggest an alternative educational
community platform (Question 18 in Appendix 1). The learners’ most popular suggestions
have been tabulated in the frequency table as follows:

Social Networking Platform of choice,
for online community learning Frequency
Google+ 10
Facebook 9
Twitter 4
Bespoke College A Community
(through the use of an in-house community)
3
YouTube 1
Whatsapp / Viber 1
The fact that Google+ only marginally proved to be the social networking platform of choice,
for educational purposes, proves that Facebook is still a highly popular and sought-after
interface to engage with. From the comments, which followed each respondent’s justification,
some learners judged both platforms as equally important. But others favoured Facebook,
over Google+, as they predicted the Facebook notification is more popular than a Google+
update. For a more detailed view of the more controversial responses, to this question, please
refer to Appendix 5.
This reference to notification settings has been attributed to what Duckworth and Ingle define
as “mobile learning” or “m-learning” (Ingle & Duckworth, 2013, p. 89). Therefore,
accessibility and engagement within e-learning becomes more informal and individualised
(JISC, 2015). These “miniature but portable […] handheld technologies are used to re-enact
approaches and solutions already used in ‘conventional’ e-learning” (Beetham & Sharpe,
2007, p. 182). In some circumstances, the portability of learning (through the engagement
with the social networking platform, via the android App, for example) surpasses the Tutor.
Participant Y admits she does not “use [Twitter] as much with [her] learners” but she would

like to experiment further with this. Participant Y prefers the security and safety of Google+,
where the learners can experiment.
Foci VI: Creating a Stable Online Voice
VI.1 – Balancing the Online Voice, as a Lecturer and Teacher Trainer
Participant Y proclaimed that it is difficult to perfect your online voice, as a lecturer,
especially if your professional role (within College A) is split between supporting learners
and advising college staff. However, after describing her reflective thought process, she
surmised that there are huge benefits to her learners’ accessing her reflective CPD blog
online. Equally, the college staff could review Participant Y’s continued deployment of e-
learning, with her learners. Participant Y viewed this process as a holistic and educational
tool in as much as “staff seeing me interact with students and […] having that teacher role…it
gives them an indication of how I behave in that area.” Therefore, this cyclical Pass It On
scenario could improve her colleagues’ utilisation of e-learning, within their own pedagogies.
VI.2 - Empowering Learners to Maintain a Stable Online Voice
Participant X urged tutors to continuously motivate their learners by not just responding to an
online comment, on the community, but crafting and nurturing their digital dialogues.
Similarly, Participant X also linked audience engagement, from a learner’s published post, to
“respect.” This ultimately assimilates with Participant Y’s discussion of nurturing learners, to
post, in a safe and secure environment. She also cited the importance of having the
opportunity to “read new information and check [the online community] regularly.” She
argued, without “e-learning, I can’t do that” asynchronously or off-campus.
Participant Y unwittingly added to Participant X’s argument, concerning the nurturing of
online learner voice and constant crafting, by explaining that learners need to be interacting

with a range of activities and e-tools. She also linked this to confidence building and this
should not be limited to the realms of education as the possibilities (for these e-learners)
should transcend into the workplace.
From the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to also consider individual learner
contribution (Question 14 from Appendix 1). 54% stated they have contributed, to a post, on
the iGCSE English Google Community whereas 46% admitted they did not:
This proves that more needs to be done in order to improve learner engagement with the
community; specifically, with encouraging active participation.

Discussion
Foci I: FELTAG Recommendations
The fact that College A, which is a representative of the FE sector, “struggle[d]” to
“implement” FELTAG’s 10% recommendation, college-wide, could suggest that an internal
policy is required on how to embed e-learning into the respective course. This would
therefore alleviate practitioners’ anxieties and concerns; with reference to how they embed
10% of e-learning into their course. In addition, the e-skills (of tutors and learners alike)
should be refreshed in half-termly e-inductions. For example, ICT audits, of the learners’ e-
competency, should be devised from the outset. Thereby, formal diagnosis of the learners’
ICT usage could be personalised. These inductions should be rigorous and proactive in their
approach and conform to the Partners in Excellence (PiXL) strategy which is to create a
“personalised learning checklist” for “Diagnosis, Therapy and Testing” (PiXL, 2015).
It should be noted, however, that at the time of gathering data, for this project, the e-learning
department consisted of two members of staff. Their support was spread thinly over the
6’000+ learner population (as well as the 250+ staff body) so more e-learning specialists
should be employed to cover the short fall, in staff, within College A.
Foci II: Encouraging Learners to Embed E-Learning via Access Provision
Participant Y, an A Level English practitioner, believed that mono-platform usage restricted
the learners. However, the C/D borderline iGCSE English learners’ use of just one social
media site allowed them to access resources via only one logon; for an integrated multi-
platform. The Google+ site may have appeared linear and two-dimensional, to Participant Y,
yet the learners could access the following, under one umbrella site:

 Student e-mail;
 Multiple Google college communities;
 Various Google Docs as well as Google Slides and Sheets.
Moreover, the same logon could be applied to the learners’ Google e-drive with 30
megabytes of storage data. This institutional storage package offered twice as much,
compared to an individual Google Drive account. Moreover, Participant X also commented
on the pleasing overall design. This reveals that design and overall aesthetic appeal is highly
important, when the tutor plans to attract the learner to the online community.
Interestingly, it was discovered that the learners are keen to find alternative modes of e-
learning but they are somewhat reluctant to share their findings on the community page. It is
important to build the confidence of our learners so they are able to take ownership of
resource contribution. The learners could then become a part of the intricate fabric of the
community framework itself. In essence, these learners could form part of a Communities of
Practice as discussed by both Lave and Wenger (Smith, 2009).
In order to enable our learners to become fully embedded within this Community of Practice
(Wenger-Trayner & Beverly, 2015), the library staff crafted a Study Skills Google Site which
included clear advice on how to research, reference, take notes and write for a specific
purpose and audience. The link to this site, since the analysis of the interviews and
questionnaires, has now been permanently attached to the iGCSE English Google
Community. This additional resource may very well enable learners, like Participant X, to
“recognise [and embed] e-learning as both a transferable and social skill.”

Foci III: Promoting E-tivities, Learner Contribution and the Homework
Label
III.1 – Promoting E-tivities for the Learners
In order to promote “e-tivities” (Salmon, 2002), they need to be engaging. Participant Y
introduced the concept of “re-design” based on the levels of learner engagement, from the
original community layout. Anderson et. al. argue that “it should be possible to re-design the
objectives […] and developmental process [in order] to begin higher levels of awareness and
attainment on the part of the students” (Anderson, et al., 2012, p. 549). This “re-design”
could take a year, based on the premise that the course taught is a one-year programme.
Therefore, the “re-design” will take fold for the second cohort but based on the same course,
qualification, level and exam board.
Participant Y also argued that the learner needs to feel confident with the technology, before
s/he starts the course. Lisa Blaschke argues that the learners need to be introduced to this
“gradual[ly]” when “encourage[ing] students to use special media actively in their own
learning” (Blaschke, 2014, p. 1). Blaschke recommends a “heutagogical framework” in order
to allow the learners to be more self-directed. She further insinuates there are four principles
of “learner centeredness” within the “heutagogical framework”:
a) Research
b) Interaction
c) Collaboration
d) Freedom
(Blaschke, 2014, p. 1)

Participant X, however, identifies herself as an “active” user yet she lists core skills such as
“read[ing]” as an “active” e-community trait. Therefore, Participant X misidentifies the role
of an “active” user. This may be because she is unable to identify higher order thinking skills
(Bonwell, 1993) such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation. But, when this is executed
correctly, it creates a “strong sense of community through peer-to-peer interaction” (Pappas,
2015).
From the questionnaire data, some learners articulated a lack of confidence, with reference to
sharing their thoughts online. But one critic argues that these social networking sites should
be used to “support student learning [as well as] peer networking” (Vivian, 2011, p. 255).
With reference to making the iGCSE English Google Community an engaging interface, we
also need to make it as enjoyable as learners’ “use of Facebook” which is “continu[ous]”
(Vivian, 2011, p. 255). There may also be a lack of trust, among students, of community
based learning within this otherwise unfamiliar Google+ site.
Another learner articulated, with the online questionnaire, a concern for being “scrutinised
publicly.” Although the literature affiliates online public scrutiny with ethical considerations,
this particular scenario does not present an ethical issue as the learners’ can publish posts
within the security and the confines of the community and also within their own college
membership. The posts themselves therefore are restricted to the community members. This
represents a portion of the college’s learner population but certainly not all learners. Learners
were also concerned about the lack of induction. This shows that the concept of online
community learning requires a full introduction yet English lecturers were assured Google
inductions were carried out by the learners’ Vocational Tutors and this is why the iGCSE
English teaching timetable started approximately two weeks after the learners started their
full-time college courses. Based on learner feedback, from September 2016, all iGCSE

English lecturers have teamed up with the vocational departments so the English Tutors can
team teach the Google inductions with their vocational colleagues.
From the learner questionnaire, some learners also complained of “little time to fully consider
the published [iGCSE English] material.” Some learners do de-prioritise their iGCSE English
self-study, partly because the requirements of their full-time course and the responsibilities
they have for their respective part-time employment. More needs to be done in order to offer
learners a prescribed self-study block, during college hours, where the learners will be
supervised but not taught. The Travel and Tourism department, within College A, are piloting
such a scheme with the potential to make this scheme compulsory for the entirety of the Hair,
Hospitality, Travel, Therapy and Performing Arts Faculty; from September 2016. Even
though these steps have been taken by staff, the learners also need to be held accountable for
their own learning as they have the power take control of their own course.
III.2 – Active Learner Contribution
Participant X cited “learning,” sharing and engagement as the core skills required for online
community learning. This also links to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the learner’s
“performance” can be broken down into “perceived quality” and “perceived usability” (Roca, et al.,
2006, p. 683). Although Participant X now shares and engages her self-study resources, linked to her
iGCSE English course, it does take time with reference to “cognitive absorption” and, reluctantly, the
current tuition time on offer does not always allow this process to take place; for the learner.
Participant X also explained that some learners join the community but they do not make use of the
online resource hub. This reveals you have to be willing to invest, as a member, in the community
learning experience. In order to solidify this online investment, the learner could sign a Student
Charter, or Learner Agreement, before committing to becoming an e-community member.
In summary, it was pleasing to read that 82% of iGCSE English learners, who responded to the online
questionnaire, believed there was a direct correlation between “academic achievement” and “online

community […] contribution” but the achievement data will need to be analysed, in order to validate
this assertion.
III.3 – Homework vs. Crafted E-tivities (Out-of-Lesson E-learning)
Participant Y argued that engagement leads to academic success and, therefore, the learner is
able to cope with real life, away from education, after s/he has completed the course. This A
Level English lecturer therefore recognises the learner transition into employment must start
with engagement. In addition, 68% of the learners considered the access to the online
coursework a highly useful tool (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. 36).
Foci IV: Community Membership Populations
When the learners become a part of a community, they “have a [sense of] belonging” as
“members matter to one another” (Rovai, 2002, p. 287). Therefore, the iGCSE English
Google Community can function almost like a distance-learning pastoral support network
because “they possess a shared faith that members’ educational needs will be met through
their commitment to shared goals” (Rovai, 2002, p. 287). This is reinforced by the 75%, from
the learner questionnaire, who believed community membership should become compulsory.
Yet, controversially, two learners believed that, in order to be independent, you need to work
away from the community.
Participant Y believed the learner’s ability to address large audiences, on social networks like
Twitter, should prepare them for the virtual world of work, outside education. Haddad and
Draxler argue that this skill could be perfected in order to reach a global audience; where
learners could discuss their learning with their equivalent peers overseas (Haddad & Draxler,
2002, p. 179).

Foci V: Choosing the Right Social Networking Site
The analysis of the questionnaire data strongly suggested that some learners prefer online
community learning in a designated social networking space, away from their personal social
network. Moreover, the learners ranked a bespoke College A community, in fourth place but
this would be quite costly to design and maintain. Whereas, Google offer College A the use
of both Google+ and Google Drive for free. However, some colleagues (linked to the English
and Maths department) have speculated that Google may later choose to charge College A for
this service. Interestingly, Participant Y admitted that she underuses Twitter with her learners
but this is mainly due to the open virtual audience and scope of the social media site,
compared with the confines and security of the Google+ interface. If colleagues wish to
experiment with alternative social networking sites further, they should seek an institutional
logon to the site; like they currently have in operation for the Google+ site.
Foci VI: Creating a Stable Online Voice
VI.1 – Balancing the Online Voice, as a Lecturer and Teacher Trainer
The dual online voice, which Participant Y describes, is much like the dual role the learners
often need to manage when they consider how to address an audience for social purposes and
learning purposes. As some young people can find it difficult to distinguish between these
online voices, some companies recognise the need for increased education in this area. For
example, Barclays have launched a series of education guides (for learners and lecturers
alike) called “Life Skills” (Barclays, 2016). In order to attract young people, to complete the
course, this was launched as an advertising campaign to sell the notion that social media
updates and profiles should be crafted for the learner’s respective industry of choice as
“social media is not just all about my social life [as] I’ve learnt how my social media can be a

platform for me to network” (Barclays, 2015). In fact, Barclays state in their literature
(concerning the ‘Social Media’ module) that “misusing social media can affect future
education and job prospects” (City and Guilds, 2015, p. 8). Therefore, Participant Y was right
to consider her learners’ future career prospects as social media publication is a part of our
professional digital culture.

Conclusion
The original aim of this study was to prove that, without engaging Post-16 iGCSE English
learners in community based online learning, they would be in danger of failing the course.
To define a ‘failure,’ would mean the learner achieving below a C grade although success is
measured on the individual’s previous qualifications and prior experience of education. So a
learner’s capabilities should not be penalised if they achieved a D grade, at College A, but
they achieved an E or F grade at school. However, the government standard is a C grade or
above and, without offering an additional parcel of learning (albeit in an online capacity), the
learner would lose that educational “quality” and the opportunity to “perform,” within the
exam, to a competent level (Roca, et al., 2006). If the learners could accept technology as a
model of online education (TAM) then they could feel a sense of “belonging” (Rovai, 2002)
and invest value in their online community learning. However, this project was not about the
academic achievement or iGCSE English final grades. It was about whether we engage the
learners in this interface successfully and, thereby, nurture the increased possibility of
success. Engagement is an entirely separate issue to achievement; hence why issues
associated with overall design, and aesthetic appeal, were discussed in the Literature Review.
By offering up College A, as a Further Education institution of study, the context specific
study allowed the opportunity to narrow my focus to iGCSE English learners who were
enrolled on the programme from across the college. Therefore, there was less opportunity to
generalise the research. Moreover, the wealth of qualitative data, gained from the in-depth
interviews, allowed for a rich tapestry of information which could be triangulated with the
questionnaire feedback. Despite the concerns discussed, regarding College A, it would be
useful to examine whether this reflected FE thinking nationally. The literature certainly
indicates this but a wider study would have been beneficial through the introduction of a

partner college. There is scope to do this as College A is part of a wider group of colleges,
where data could be collected but within the same company.
The study hopefully has validated the argument that online community learning should
become an inherent part of post-16 college culture. This approach could also be adopted in
Sixth Form Colleges and Schools. With the latter, Headteachers are still very much resilient
to change and their social media policies reflect this. Schools are right to be cautious but
careful planning will minimise any concerns. If we are to trust our learners to articulate their
learning, on a community platform or online drive, then the learners could craft the content
and pace of their lessons to the extent where the teacher, or lecturer, becomes a facilitator and
gradually divert from the role of an instructor. This truly blended approach should not just be
an ideal we should all aspire to: it is a realistic and embedded code of conduct we can all
adopt fully. But, every educational practitioner, and every colleague (within Post-16
education) must fully embrace this change.

Works Cited
Activate Learning, 2014. The Activate Learning Agenda. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.activatelearning.ac.uk/sites/default/files/AL_0256_Group%20Strategic%20Plan_
2014-18_LO-RES_final_approved.pdf
[Accessed 2 July 2015].
Activate Learning, 2015. Transforming the Curriculum. Reading, @PaulNewman28.
Alexander, S., 2001. E-learning developments and experiences. Education + Training,
42(4/5), pp. 240-248.
Anderson, A., Johnston, B. & McDonald, A., 2012. Patterns of Learning in a Sample of Adult
Returner to Higher Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), pp. 536-552.
Anon, 2015. Utilising E-learning in and outside the Classroom for Educational Purposes
[Interview] (7 July 2015).
AQA, 2015. Introducing our new specifications for AS and A-level English Language: Watch
the webinar. [Online]
Available at: http://www.aqa.org.uk/resources/english/plan/webinars-session-4
[Accessed 9 December 2015].
Association for Learning Technology, 2003. What is Learning Technology?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.alt.ac.uk/about-alt/what-learning-technology
[Accessed 11 June 2015].
Attwell, G., 2006. A Framework for the Evaluation of E-learning. In: Evaluating E-learning:
A Guide to the Evaluation of E-learning. Stanford, California: Creative Commons
Attribution, pp. 14-16.
Barclays, 2015. Barclays LifeSkills: How social media can help you network. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGZHXxVjpAU&list=PLecqH2uhOR0ZS6NsFbVd7hK
Zx8ugj5gLj
[Accessed 20 March 2016].
Barclays, 2016. Life Skills: Effective Use of Social Media. [Online]
Available at: https://www.barclayslifeskills.com/teachers/lessons/effective-use-of-social-
media/
[Accessed 24 April 2016].
Bates, A. W., 1997. Restructuring the university for technological change, London: The
Carnegie Foundation.

Bates, T. A. W., 2005. Technology, E-Learning and Distance Education. 2nd ed. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R., 2007. Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and
Delivering E-learning. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bell, J., 2010. Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first-time researchers in education,
health and social science. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Biggam, J., 2011. Succeeding with your Master's Dissertation: A step-by-step handbook. 2nd
ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Blaschke, M. L., 2014. Using Social Media to Engage and Develop the Online Learner in
Self-Determined Learning. Research in Learning Technology, Volume 22, pp. 1-23.
Blass, E. & Davis, A., 2003. Building on Solid Foundations: establishing criteria for e-
learning development. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3), pp. 227-245.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. & Tight, M., 2010. How to Research. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Bonwell, C. C., 1993. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Great
Mountain Falls, Colorado: Active Learning.
Broad, J., 2006. Interpretations of Independent Learning in Further Education. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 30(2), pp. 119-143.
Brown, S., Armstrong, S. & Thompson, G., 2013. Motivating Students. 3rd ed. Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.
Cambridge International Examinations, 2013. Cambridge iGCSE English First Language
Syllabus 2015. [Online]
Available at: http://www.cie.org.uk/images/128363-2015-syllabus.pdf
[Accessed 15 June 2015].
ChildWise, 2001. Monitor trends repor t 2008., Norwich: Queen's House.
City and Guilds, 2015. Your LifeSkills guide: A free, curriculum-linked programme to help
get your students ready for the world of work, London: Barclays.
Clarke, A., 2008. Palgrave Study Skills: E-Learning Skills. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Coffield, F., 2009. All you ever wanted to know about learning and teaching: But we're too
cool to ask, 2009: Learning and Skills Network.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A., 2015. Strategies for Qualitative Data Analysis. In: V. Knight, L.
Barrett & M. Markanich, eds. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures
for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications, pp. 85-106.

Davies, D. B., 2000. Grice's Co-operative Principle: Getting the Meaning Across, Leeds: The
University of Leeds.
Day, A., 2014. The Numberverse: how numbers are bursting out of anything and just want to
have fun. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing Ltd..
Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2015. FELTAG Progress Report: An update
on progress since the publication of the Further Education Learning Technologies Action
Group, London: Open Government Licence.
Department for Education, 2015. 2015 School and College Performance Tables: Statement of
Intent, London: Crown Copyright Open Government Licence.
Dey, E. L., Burn, E. H. & Gerdes, D., 2009. Bringing the Classroom to the Web: Effects of
Using New Technologies to Capture and Deliver Lectures. Research in Higher Education,
50(4), pp. 377-393.
Donlan, L., 2014. Exploring the views of students on the use of Facebook in university
teaching. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), pp. 572-588.
Education Funding Agency, 2016. 16 to 19 Funding: Maths and English Condition of
Funding. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/16-to-19-funding-maths-and-english-condition-
of-funding
E, P., 2015. Does the use of social media in education make for a superficial learning
experience. [Online]
Available at: http://padlet.com/paul_emberlin/5opfjjoq0pbd
[Accessed 15 November 2015].
Etherington, D., 2013. Apple Has Sold Over 8M iPads Direct To Education Worldwide, With
More Than 1B iTunes U Downloads. [Online]
Available at: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/28/apple-has-sold-over-8m-ipads-direct-to-
education-worldwide-with-more-than-1b-itunes-u-downloads/
[Accessed 4th December 2015].
Exley, S., 2014. Shortage of English and Maths Teachers Puts College Funding at Risk.
[Online]
Available at: https://www.tes.com/news/further-education/breaking-news/shortage-english-
and-maths-teachers-puts-college-funding-risk
FELTAG, 2013. FELTAG Recommendations: Paths Forward to a Digital Future for Further
Education and Skills, London: FELTAG.
Ferenstein, G., 2013. Online Education Is Replacing Physical Colleges At A Crazy Fast Pace.
[Online]

Available at: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/11/a-huge-month-online-education-is-replacing-
physical-colleges-at-a-crazy-fast-pace/
[Accessed 4th December 2015].
Fordham, I. & Martin, N., 2015. Digital Colleges The Journey So Far: Harnessing the
Potential of Technology for Radical Change, London: The Education Foundation.
Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M., 2014. A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep
Learning, London: Pearson.
Gilbert, J., Morton, S. & Rowley, J., 2007. e-Learning: The student experience. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), pp. 560-573.
Goddard, A. & Geesin, B., 2009. Language and Technology. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Golden, S., McCrone, T., Walker, M. & Rudd, P., 2006. Impact of e-learning in Further
Education: Survey of Scale and Breadth, Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Gunasekaran, A., McNeil, R. D. & Shaul, D., 2002. E-Learning: research and applications.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(2), pp. 44-53.
Haddad, W. D. & Draxler, A., 2002. Technologies for Education: Potentials, Parameters and
Prospects. France and Washington DC: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organisations (UNESCO) & The Academy for Educational Development (AED).
Hungenberg, H., Denker, H.-P., Sebastien, M. & Albrecht, E., 2008. The long tail of social
networking.: Revenue models of social networking sites. European Management Journal,
26(3), pp. 199-211.
Ingle, S. & Duckworth, V., 2013. Enhancing Learning through Technology in Lifelong
Learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
JISC, 2015. Mobile Learning: A practical guide for educational organisations planning to
implement a mobile learning initiative. [Online]
Available at: https://jisc.ac.uk/guides/mobile-learning
[Accessed 23 November 2015].
Jones, A., Webb, E., Barker, P. & van Schaik, P., 2004. Using e-learning dialogues in higher
education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), pp. 93-103.
Karsenti, T. & Fievez, A., 2013. The iPad in education: Uses, Benefits and Challenges,
Quebec, Canada: QC: CRIFPE.
Kineo, 2013. Blended Learning - Current Use, Challenges and Best Practices, Oxford: The
Oxford Group.
King, S. W. & Sereno, K. K., 1984. Conversational appropriateness as a conversational
imperative. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(3), pp. 264-273.

K, J., 2015. Review of the Effectiveness of the iGCSE English Google Community [Interview]
(13 May 2015).
Maier, P. & Warren, A., 2000. Integr@ting Technology in Learning and Teaching. London:
Kogan Page Limited.
Mair, C., 2012. Using technology for enhancing reflective writing, metacognition and
learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, May, 36(2), pp. 147-167.
Mayne, W. et al., 2015. 'There's more unites us than divides us!' A further and higher
education community of practice in nursing. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(2),
pp. 163-179.
Men Women and Children. 2014. [Film] Directed by Jason Reitman. United States of
America: Paramount Pictures.
Meschi, E., Crawford, C. & Vignoles, A., 2010. Post-16 educational choices and institutional
value added at Key Stage 5. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181266/CEE-
POST16-educational-choices.pdf
[Accessed 21 August 2015].
Noss, R., 2007. Education 2.0? Designing the web for teaching and learning, London:
TLRP-TEL Institute of Education.
Pappas, C., 2015. Active Learning In Online Training: What eLearning Professionals Should
Know. [Online]
Available at: http://elearningindustry.com/active-learning-in-online-training-what-elearning-
professionals-should-know
Pataraia, N., Margaryan, A., Falconer, I. & Littlejohn, A., 2013. How and what do academics
learn through their personal networks. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(3), pp.
336-357.
Paton, G., 2013. Pen and paper exams 'to be axed within a decade'. [Online]
Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10321372/Pen-and-paper-
exams-to-be-axed-within-a-decade.html
[Accessed 7 September 2015].
PiXL, 2015. Partners in Excellence: Events and Initiatives. [Online]
Available at: http://www.pixl.org.uk/resources
Poore, M., 2013. Using Social Media in the Classroom. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Porter, N., 2015. Crossing the Line: Improving Success Rates Among Students Retaking
English and Maths GCSEs, London: Policy Exchange - Policy Bite.
Prober, C. G. & Heath, C., 2012. Becoming a Physician: Lecture Halls without Lectures - A
Proposal for Medical Education. The New England Journal of Medicine, 3 May, 366(18), pp.
1657-1659.
Pullen, C. & Varley-Winter, O., 2014. Culture, Coaching and Collaboration, London: City
and Guilds.
Richardson, W., 2006. Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for
Classrooms. London: Sage Publications.
Roca, C. J., Chiu, C.-M. & Martinez, F. J., 2006. Understanding E-Learning Continuance
Intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, Volume 64, pp. 683-696.
Rovai, A. P., 2002. Development of an Instrument to Measure Classroom Community. The
Internet and Higher Education Journal, 5(3), pp. 197-211.
Salmon, G., 2002. E-tivities: the key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page.
Sembi, P. S., 2012. Implementing change: an autobiographical case study of introducing a
technology innovation within a West Midlands HEI. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 36(1), pp. 109-125.
Smith, M. K., 2009. Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and communities of practice. [Online]
Available at: www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm.
Snell, J., 2015. Tim Cook transcript: What Apple’s CEO said to analysts. [Online]
Available at: https://sixcolors.com/post/2015/01/tim-cook-transcript-what-apples-ceo-said-to-
analysts/
Taylor, G., 2015. FE Experts: The Principal's Office - English and Maths Challenge.
[Online]
Available at: http://feweek.co.uk/2015/11/30/the-principals-office-english-and-maths-
challenge/
The Education and Training Foundation, 2014. Strategic Consultation: Mathematics and
English, Coventry: Centre for the Use of Research and Evidence in Education.
The Education Foundation, 2011. The Journey to Education Reform: Education Britain,
London: The Education Foundation.

The Education Foundation, 2014a. Facebook Guide for Educators: A Tool for Teaching and
Learning. London: The Education Foundation.
The Education Foundation, 2014b. Technology in Education: A System View. London: The
Education Foundation.
The Guardian, 2014. College Tutors Can't Do in 26 Weeks What Teachers Fail to Achieve in
11 Years. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/15/college-tutors-teachers-
ofsted-english-maths-teaching
[Accessed 10 January 2015].
Thomson, S., Lupton, R. & Unwin, L., 2015. The Coalition’s Record on Further
Education,Skills and Access to Higher Education 2010-2015, Manchester: Centre for
Analysis of Social Exclusion.
Tobin, D. R., 1998. Building Your Personal Learning Network. [Online]
Available at: http://www.tobincls.com/learningnetwork.htm
[Accessed 25 August 2015].
Vivian, R., 2011. University Students' Informal Learning Practices Using Facebook: Help or
Hindrance?. Enhancing Learning Technology Education Unplugged: Mobile Technologies
and Web 2.0, Volume 177, pp. 254-267.
Wallace, S., 2011. Teaching, Tutoring and Training in the Lifelong Learning Sector. 4th ed.
Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd.
Wenger-Trayner, E. & Beverly, W.-T., 2015. Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction.
[Online]
Available at: http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/07-Brief-introduction-
to-communities-of-practice.pdf
Wheeler, S. & John, P. D., 2008. The Digital Classroom: Harnessing Technology for the
Future. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wolf, A., 2011. Review of Vocational Education - The Wolf Report, London: Department for
Education.
Zhang, T., Gao, T., Ring, G. & Zhang, W., 2007. Using Online Discussion Forums to Assist
a Traditional English Class. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(4), pp. 623-643.

Appendix 1 – Online Questionnaire (Advertised on the Learner Community)
Googling for iGCSE English
As part of my Master’s Degree in Education, I would like to write about the usefulness of
e-learning for learners who study iGCSE English. Please would you kindly fill out the
questionnaire to help with my research? Many thanks in advance for filling this out.
2. Are you a 16-19 full-time learner or standalone (19+) part-time learner?
o 16+ full-time learner
o Standalone (19+) part-time learner
o N/A as Member of Staff
3. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the most useful), how useful have you found
the iGCSE English Google Community?
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely
useful
⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ Completely
useless
4. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the most useful), how useful have you found
the iGCSE English Learning Resource Folder (on Google Drive)?
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely
useful
useless
5. College A are planning to move to Google Classroom, from September
2015. This will mean accessing programmes like Google Drive, Google
Docs and Google+ through one programme. Please explain below if you
think this is a good or bad idea.
Please try to explain your answer:

6. How useful have you found doing your iGCSE English coursework online
this year?
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely
useful
useless
7. How could the iGCSE English Google Community be improved, for our
students from September 2015?
Try to think about how the community is currently structured (into
categories like Discussion, Homework, Classwork, Past Papers etc)
8. Have you accessed Apps like Google Drive and/or Google+ on portable
devices, this year, such as on an iPad or iPhone?
o Yes
o No
8a) If you selected ‘Yes’ above, how useful did you find accessing these
Apps on your portable device?
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely
useful
useless
8b) If you selected ‘No’ (to the question on Apps), what stopped you
from using Google+ and/or Google Drive on your Phone or Tablet?

9. This year, Tutor posts (posts from staff) have taken over the community.
How can we encourage learners to write their own posts, in the future?
10. How can we encourage learners to comment on more posts?
11. One of the reasons why the community and online resource folders were
created was due to limited tuition time (1.5 hours a week). Can you think
of any other benefits to using an online learning community?
12. How often do you check the iGCSE English Google Community?
o Daily
o Weekly
o Fortnightly
o Monthly
o Never
13. Did you receive an induction on ‘How to use Google’ before you started
your iGCSE English course?
o Yes
o No
14. Within the next 3-4 years, we will be required to deliver at least 10% of
our courses online. What do you think about this?

15. Have you ever contributed to a post, on the iGCSE English Google
Community, and/or written your own post?
o Yes
o No
16. Every time a tutor or learner posts on the community, you receive a
notification. How useful would you found these notifications?
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely
useful
useless
17. Do you think having access to online resources, and the community, has
improved your chances of achieving your grade?
o Yes
o No
18. I’ve observed my learners’ active use of social networking sites like
Facebook but why do you think some of our learners struggle to engage
with the iGCSE English Google Community?
19. Can you suggest an alternative online platform we could use, instead of
Google (for iGCSE English)?
Please feel free to give as little or as much information as possible for this
question.

20. From September 2015, do you think membership to the iGCSE English
Google Community should be made compulsory, for all iGCSE English
learners?
o Yes
o No
21. If yes, then why? Or, if not, then why not?
22. At times, the community has been used as a ‘hall of fame’ by sharing good
examples of learners’ work. Do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
Please try to explain your answer

Appendix 2 – Fully Transcribed Interview (with a Staff Member from College A)
Proposed title for referencing: Utilising E-learning in and outside the Classroom
for Educational Purposes
J: okay. This is Tuesday 7th July
2015. I'm here to interview Participant Y. Participant Y, could you just state your role
at the college please?
H: Yeah, I’m a Learning and Development Manager and also a Teacher of English A
Level.
J: Thank you very much and Participant Y is here for an interview on e-learning to
contribute to my Masters dissertation on the very same topic. So the first question I
would like to ask Participant Y is, what is your opinion of the proposed
recommendations by FELTAG?
H: Ummm...initially when FELTAG came out it was really exciting because it was
really the first time when technology had been kind of recognised as being important
in education umm and kind of significant to the development of students and kind of
their future progress I guess umm whether that be in work or further study umm it
was really great actually to get a piece of research like that, that was so innovative
and further education related as well. Umm I think that was a key kind of moment for
further education, finding its way within Teaching and Learning?
Umm...so...yeah...Initially, really really excited. I think the struggles that we now have
is implementing some of these recommendations and, although the
recommendations are great, umm….I think some of the issues that we face in further
education, relate to kind of...particularly the students level of
independence...because pure online learning requires a great level of self-direction
and sort of independence which a lot of our learners are in the process of
developing...and they’re all at different stages of that umm so I think a lot more of
understanding of that kind of needs to take place really. Umm I think the other thing
is umm [3] teach the skills to really see that through umm...to fruition. So that’s very
varied across the sector umm...because we have a number of staff who have maybe
come from industry. That’s the reason it can vary so greatly because some of them
have maybe used a lot of technology, before they've come into teaching, umm and
many of them haven’t at all necessarily so you’ve got this real divide of teachers
being able to implement recommendations umm and I think the main bit that has
concerned me so far is the ten per cent part which, because they’ve included a
number, the numbers are the easy bits really so...umm...certain institutions have kind
of seen the ten per cent and gone "right we’re going to put ten per cent of our
courses online" without really thinking about the context and the learners and what
kind of interaction will there be with them and the technology so, for some levels and
some contexts, it kind of...it should look different in each of those and it might be
more than ten per cent or it might be less than ten per cent umm but I feel like the
ten per cent is a little bit of a misjudgement I guess [sic]
J: So if you’re arguing that perhaps some study skills should be introduced in order
to make this phase successful-

H: Yeah Yeah Yeah
J: -Would you say that the way FELTAG have got this ten per cent and fifty per cent,
these markers, do you think that’s their way of saying ‘oh well, we’re going to ease it
in to FE?-
H: -Umm well yeah. I guess that’s part of their approach and I think it’s also [2] yeah
[2] it indicates their level of understanding of the kind of teacher skill development
required as well in that they’re not expecting fifty per cent straightaway. They’re
aware that it is going to be a journey for us too umm in terms of getting that online
content ready umm [2] I can’t [.] I think it’s just for me not enough has come out since
the recommendations about the how...so there’s so much to learn about the
pedagogy of online learning because I think it is so different to learning in the
classroom when it’s face to face and we know a lot more about that now. Umm...and
I think online learning, there's a danger of going backwards and being very teacher
led. Some of the things I’ve seen so far are almost like "here’s the content [.] and
here’s maybe a little bit of assessment" but it's kind of...it's almost gone backwards in
teaching and learning-
J: Oh I see-
H: -umm in terms of that. I mean some of the other stuff you see is great and sort of
the more blended approaches are starting to work really well so we’re on that
journey probably towards online learning, being great but there’s just so much learn
about it, I think. Umm...yeah...and how we develop those independent skills. Who
knows? But...yeah…
J: Thank you very much
H: No, that’s cool.
J: Ummm...how do you personally incorporate e-learning into your English lessons?
H: Umm [3] loads of ways. Urgh [2] I think….I listed something on the [sic] to try
and...yeah...
J: Yes, I noticed that you talked about quizzes-
H: -Yes, a lot of it for me is kind gaining student responses in different ways so [3] I’d
obviously started off kind of thinking , "well, I need different kind of responses from
everyone in the room and not just one person," so I kind of changed my questioning
technique already to maybe incorporate whiteboards or sticky notes more frequently.
Umm...but there are online tools that can kind of do the same thing so [2] I’ll often
use the Google+ communities for a pole or a question in class. Umm I will
sometimes use umm things like today’s meet which is sort of stream a little bit like
Twitter where they get a character limit and they can just all put in their responses
that way. There’s also [.] Yeah [.] So things like Socrative and Quizzes have been
brilliant for that because its great for the multiple choice questions where I just want
to check on their terminology, their understanding of the novel [1] And it just means

that I’ve then got something to look at afterwards Umm..because often I’ll get the
question responses in class and if I used whiteboards or sticky note, I could
potentially take a picture of them and I’ve kind of got in the habit of doing that. But, if
I forget to take a picture, if I’ve done it online on the quiz software, it means that it
retains all those student responses. So I can look at them later and remind myself of
which bits I got right or wrong and which bits we need to look at at a later lesson so
that, for me, is a huge advantage because it keeps me a little bit more organised
because there are always things that I forget to do.
J: And then you can [.] I’m assuming you can then build that feedback into your
pedagogy? Into your actual lesson content?
H: Yeah definitely because I can then adjust the following lesson if I know they can’t
remember certain terms or certain chapter [.] that kind of thing.
J: And do you think there’s an argument whereby you presenting this or having
evidence of this to refer back to...as you say..this is evidence of your portfolio as a
teacher as well?
H: Yeah I think so [.] It can help [.] I mean yeah [.] obviously I’ve been observed
recently and one thing I made sure I include now is some of the QR codes for some
of the key technology things that I’m using because I think it’s so integral to my
teaching that if somebody observing me doesn’t see that part [.] they’re kind of only
seeing part of my teaching? Umm because so much of it goes on elsewhere as well
umm so in terms of me using Google Sites and Classroom to extend the classroom
experience so its not just in class but out of class as well. Umm...things like my
YouTube channel where I’ve kind of added other people’s videos where I’ve also
added my own and things like Ed Puzzle where I’ve turned those videos into
something alongside quiz so the videos just become a little bit more dynamic for the
students. Umm...I think the ways in which I use technology are designed to just
enhance the student experience. I think back to the start of my teaching, I did start to
dabble technology. I don’t … I didn’t use as much as I do now but the only reason I
use it is to enhance the experience they’re already getting so, if I look at how I used
to use a video for homework or in class, I would give them the video and just expect
them to watch it. And then we talk about it afterwards. But using something like
EdPuzzle or combining it with the community where they get to share their
responses, it just makes it ten times better in terms of their learning experience
because they’re not just watching it….it’s not just passive. They actually get to
actively engage with it so….
J: Okay. Thank you [4] Umm...how do you encourage your learners to access e-
learning outside the lesson? I know you’ve just already touched on that…
H: Yeah [sic]
J: We talked about the learners [.] engagement is key so they can’t be passive umm
[.] I mean, how do you monitor things like...Umm….for example, how they’ve
accessed your YouTube channel? Do you get...do you look at their views? Is that
attached to their student logon or…?

H: It’s not. That would be brilliant. Umm….I can see how many views I’ve had and
usually in the initial stages of me of uploading one of my own videos, it's umm quite a
good tell because although I have other people following my channel, I think I've had
a massive increase because I've said, 'watch this for homework,' I can kind of see
how many views my video has had. Umm...it doesn't necessarily indicate.... But I
think it's where I've combined the YouTube with...'you must comment on the
Google+ Community about your thoughts and your reflections.' That's where I can
volunteer it and that's where I can check it because I'll know what their views have
been about it. Umm...I think one thing I can change, with what I've done this year,
with having work and anything outside of class, it's was only available online. There
was one student who had real difficulty accessing stuff at home and I had a really old
laptop of my own that can barely like plug in anymore umm but I lent her that and
that meant she could get online when she was at home. Umm...I think in some ways
that's really increased engagement. And I would definitely carry on doing that
because it just means they haven't got another option. They can't get it paper based
or they can't kind of ask me for it. It's all available either on our site or on the
community and there's an expectation that they have to have done before the
following lesson and I think turning it more into sort of flipped learning has helped
that because they know that, if they come to the lesson and they haven't done it,
they maybe behind because they're not gonna have umm...caught up with that. I
think where I've struggled to engage learners online umm....is where some of our
learners just really hate technology! Umm...and I think there are some. I think
sometimes we make the assumption that all young people are great with technology
umm...it's just not right [.] I've heard it mentioned so many times by other colleagues
about the younger generation: that they're really tech savvy and I've got a number
who just really hate it. They don't have Smart Phones. You know...they much prefer
paper and pen. Umm...but I think for them it is more of a gradual sell about the
benefits of it. One of them I've managed to get on board more recently umm...is
through his blogging because umm so he wants to go into kind of journalism and
what I said to him by getting out his writing now and start to develop that voice in his
writing and sharing it with the public and getting feedback and that kind of thing. It's
going to develop his skills and it would be great for job applications, university
applications etc. umm...I think that was an important moment because, until then, he
hadn't really seen the purpose. But, in a lot of ways it's like anything you do in the
classroom, it's got to be really personalised towards that individual student and
you've got to get them to a point where they can see the benefits of what technology
will bring them. Ummm...I'm still on that journey with a couple of them who are still so
resistant. Umm..so yeah...it's more of a battle than even I thought it would be
because technology makes things so much easier for me like I thought they would
automatically see the benefits. Umm...a lot of the time they don't so you've just gotta
kind of keep persevering with it, I think.
J: That's interesting to know. Thank you. Umm...you recently planned an online
lesson where the learners engaged with the resources at home. Why did you choose
to do this? I looked at some of it and it looked really, you know, engaging and
interactive so why did you choose to do that at that particular time?
H: So, at that particular point it was part of the two-week transition from AS to A2 for
some of our learners, and, with the [new] A Level next year, the department has
decided that one or part of the units will take place online and they will have a

dedicated half hour online slot every day of the week and so I wanted to get my
students more into the habit of learning online and kind of setting that expectation
quite early on that this might be something we would do. Umm...
J: And after, because you invited me into your community, for that course...I noticed
afterwards I thought it was lovely how you shared posts based on what learners had
written from that particular activity. But how do you go about making sure that
everybody has actually completed that actual activity? And what do you do with
learners that haven't?
H: Yeah, there was a little bit of that this time because the other reason why I ran it
on that particular day was because the college was closed for a GCSE Maths exam.
And so it also made sense to kind of for them not to miss out on learning and to
engage online so I had a lesson with them the following day umm...and I just kind of
made a list of who I needed to speak to that hadn't kind of posted yet.....so we
already had ChromeBooks booked for that day so I was able to say, before you start
on anything else, I need to go in and complete this. Umm...part of me thinks....I don't
know....yeah....it is not sustainable I think to do that all the time because we're not
going to have the ChromeBooks and we're not always going to have the time to
catch up in class on it. In other situations, just like any other homework really, I've
just pestered them until they've completed it and, if they're still refusing, then I'd add
it to ProMonitor as sort of a concern really...that they're not keeping up with the
expectations of the course. Umm...that's generally the way I deal with it.
J: Do you give them three attempts or...? Or 3 chances or something like that-
H:-yeah usually. Umm...I have to give them a couple of reminders and set a final
deadline. Usually that deadline is umm...more recently I've negotiated that deadline
with them a little bit. Umm...because I've found if I get their buy-in...well I kind of say,
'when can you do it by?' Rather than me saying, 'you've got until then,'
umm..because I'm aware that some of my learners have part-time work and they've
got other things going on in their lives. Umm...so yeah...I've tried to involve them a
little bit more in that decision. Which has helped in most cases this year I think
because they've told me what the date is. There's no wriggle room then because
they've committed to it. It does require that. It does require me to remember to
remind them and to set them a deadline and remind them about it because otherwise
they get into the habit of....I guess like any homework really that just not completing it
and thinking that it's okay. So I've really got to continue reinforcing that I think.
J: Thank you [3] Could you briefly comment upon the success of this online lesson
(and perhaps what you asked the learners to do)? So, for the latter, could you just
briefly take me through what you wanted them to do and how you felt that built into
your course?
H: so, because it was the transition, I needed to introduce them to kind of the new
ways for working this year. So a little bit of online learning but also the content of the
course. And umm so the other part of it...the reason why we do things this way...to
do with the coursework...so just so that they were introduced to the new year,
umm...I didn't really want to do that in class for starters just because it ends up being
me at the front talking from a PowerPoint and just explaining what the requirements

of the course are. Umm..so I'd made a couple of videos ... Reason being that they
can just look back over the video because it has got all the information in there
umm...but I also wanted...because this year there's been two AS classes. I've taught
one of them and Brenda has taught the other. Next year so, from September, in the
AS class they will be combined into one A2 class combined so there's also a way of
the learners meeting one another [sic] even in just an online capacity. And also
introducing Brenda's class to more online learning because I know that they haven’t
maybe had quite the same experience as my guys this year...umm..., although she's
done certain things with them, I wanted them all to be on the same kind of hymn
sheet in terms of using the Google+ community, accessing the site and also writing
blogs. So those were the kind of three things that they were all required to do. And I
guess the really exciting bit was that a few of Brenda's learners were kind of the first
ones to post and get involved which was really exciting for me because I wasn't sure
how I was going to take it and kind of get involved with the new group. So that was
really a good moment. That was good success I think.
J: Okay. Thank you very much. Umm...in a recent training session (actually it was
more like in a recent interview or meeting) with the Head of E-learning, it was
recommended that we move away from the label of homework and PE has also said
the same thing to me in a recent interview. So could you explain why you think that
is? Why do we have to move away from that homework label?
H: Umm...I think homework is seen as it is for school and it’s for your qualification
and I think when staff tend to see it as actually see it as development of skills and
attributes that you can carry on into the future and so by developing independence
and research skills and learning online Umm... they’re going to be more able to cope
with the future I guess...yeah...urgh….demands of either work or further study.
Umm...so its more than just doing it for your teacher and for your course. Umm...and
I think with some of the stuff that I’ve been doing around the blogging, that kind of
massively shows that to them because I’m getting them to blog about anything that
they want and yes it does develop their writing skills and it will develop their peer
assessment skills, because they’re going to comment on one another’s, so that it
relevant to the course but really it just develops their online presence and their kind
of voice umm it that realm so and yeah I’d spoken to PE as well about that kind of
thing umm and I’m going to start to adopt more of his approaches this year I think
because he was talking about how he just kind of says ‘you’ve got to do this amount
of hours of kind extra stuff outside of class this week and you can just kind of tell me
how you’ve done it and what you’ve done, at the end, kind of when you’ve come
back into class.’ Umm...and I really liked that idea because it's just informal and free
for the student to kind of choose what they need to work on and how to do it umm...I
really like that idea of choice in education. I think it’s important.
J; Thank you
H: You’re welcome
J: Every colleague who has been interviewed about this project has stressed the
importance of planning engaging (that was the key thing JK kept saying to me) e-

learning activities. Could you explain (I know you’ve already touched on this) but
could you explain or summarise maybe why you believe this to be so important?
H: Umm...I think making learning engaging in any context is really important. Umm...I
started off my teaching career with teaching NEET learners so they’ve been out of
employment and education for several years, and engaging them with learning again
was one of the most important things I needed to do. Umm...they needed to kind of
see the relevance of it and the importance of it and buy into it...all of that kind of thing
and I think it is no different when they are learning online.
I think it is also even perhaps more important to go back to what I said before about
developing learners independence. I think we’ve got no chance of doing that if online
learning isn’t engaging. If it looks like very traditional learning so they have a
document to read or a video to watch with then very little follow-up Umm… a) the
learning isn’t going to be effective but it is certainly not going to be engaging to the
learner. Ummm...yeah [4]
I think you need them to opt into it. You need them to buy it. And I think what I’ve
said before about being personalised as well. I think that is very important for making
it engaging because different learners are going to be engaged by different things so
it is important, to a certain extent, to provide a little bit of choice and variety there. I
think that is another key thing to think about.
Umm...and I’ve done that with their summer task. So I’ve told them to kind of
research a particular task about a particular poet but I’ve told them to use any
particular online tool that they want. Umm...when we return back in September.
Ummm...and that was really important for me because I didn’t to say ‘you’re going to
present back in this particular way.’ Some of them have already started working on
Prezi for that and Prezi isn’t a tool I particular like. I never use it in my lessons but it
was important for them to choose a tool that they wanted to use….Umm….so I think
that’s another way in engaging them because it’s choice and they get to buy into the
process a little bit more.
J: So going back to that task so what you’re saying is so you gave them...what was
prescribed was the name of that poet for that individual out of a hat-
H: No, they also had a choice that way.
J: Oh right.
H: So they could choose any poet, from the list, that appeals to them. So they’ve
been on the transition a lot of it was about kind of reading different poets and what
they liked and why. So choice is just always a big part of my course anyway. But
then..yeah...so the engaging part is through that and they can choose to use
whichever tool they want.
J: That’s really interesting because I felt like, coming from teaching in schools,
sometimes you’re almost when you’re starting off with something like when you’re
starting a new topic with a new poet or whatever it is...you’re always going in cold.
And the e-learning can bring in that feeling that they’ve gone away and at least had a

look at that so they’ve got some understanding of what you’re introducing or
whatever-
H: Yes, exactly. And I said they were kind of like ‘can we look up the poet and find
out a bit more about them,’ and I said ‘yes, of course you can.’ So I always say that
they can research and find other people and, with the resources, they often stumble
across other videos made by other teachers and other blogs, that kind of thing,
they’ll often come across the educational content umm...which is just another
teacher approaching it in a different way. I think it’s quite nice. Umm..
J: But do you think...I completely agree..but do you think they have the capacity to
self select what they think is good content or what you perceive to be ‘good’ online
content?
H: That’s part of the process of development really. I’ve definitely seen that. That
sometimes they’ll pick something and I’ll just think that’s not really that helpful. So
sometimes they’ve dismissed a poet because they’ve come across something that
isn’t particularly interesting or engaging about that poet umm...whereas I would kind
of know because I’ve developed my research skills over time that I would look at
several different sources and I kind of know good sites to look at umm….so part of
what I’d like to use the community for is that kind of work this year so I’m going to get
them to share some sites that they think are useful and we will do some critique on
those in class so that I can start to flag up some of those key issues because I know
they’re going to encounter them at university which is where most of them are
intending on going.
But yeah….but I think those kinds of conversations need to happen all the time with
them because they can’t distinguish what is useful really. They tend to go for like the
first page of Google and perhaps the first three entries-
J: That’s really interesting that they would assume that they would like or dislike that
poet based on the resource itself which is a-
H: Yeah, exactly.
J: That’s kind of an interesting concept isn’t it? Peculiar but in the sense of how
they’re interacting with it and what they perceive-
H: -Yeah, definitely-
J: Okay, thank you. Umm...If you compare the number. of members on an A Level
English community (so approximately 20) to the no. of members on the iGCSE
English Community (and we’ve got approximately 500 at the moment), obviously the
range is vast. Could you discuss the advantages and disadvantages of monitoring
(or moderating, that word should be, sorry) both a small and large online community,
for English learners?
H: Yeah. Umm...I guess the majority disadvantage for me is kind of what the level of
engagement might be and I think you need to engage with a community in different
ways. Umm...because 500 students to post in front of is fairly intimidating and

terrifying, isn’t it? I think umm...having said that, yeah...I’m already moving into the
advantages...I’m kind of thinking it through...but the huge advantage of that is
exposing them to places like Twitter where they can do sort of professional
networking where they might be sharing their thoughts with perhaps hundreds or
even thousands of people or followers...and if they get to that point so I think it is
important to develop in them and I think part of that is developing their kind
of...because the people on the larger community won't necessarily be in their own
class, they probably haven’t met in person...but I think it’s really important to develop
their skills in communicating with people they’ve never met before. I was just chatting
to Martin King the other week who’s a technology guy who used to work in FE-
J:-oh yeah-
H:-and he’s sort of set-up on his own and doing other projects-
J:-I’ve seen him on-
H:-[sic] so I had a Google Hangout with him and what was really interesting is says
he’s been working and collaborating with people for years who he’s still never met in
person and I think developing that skill in our learners is just going to totally future
proof them for that kind of work because they work for a company that’s kind of
international...ummm….then they’re going to need that skill so I think a larger
community has huge benefits for that reason Umm...-
J:-especially if that community is subscribed to the same spec or the same exam
board.
H:-yeah exactly-
J: They’re all learning the same course-
H: They still have something in common and I think that’s a good way in for them to
start sharing things because they know that everyone else is going to be interested
in what they have to say because they’re all studying the same programme
umm...yeah….I do think it does require sort of working in different ways and I think...I
don’t know...I guess things could be done around putting students in groups or
perhaps creating projects and opportunities just to get those discussions going. Just
initially umm... so that they start to make those links perhaps in the first week in
order to introduce themselves to someone else in the community. Just something
like that perhaps to share a profile or something.
J: That’s what Paul, Paul said-
H: It’s kind of ice breakers, isn’t it?
J: Yeah-
H: I suppose. The equivalent of what you do in the classroom but doing it on there as
well. Oh! I think that might be a thing that you could start to develop now. I don’t think
that exists! I haven’t read that before. e-Icebreakers. I love it.

J: You should publish some of this stuff.
[Both participants laugh]
J: Okay. So instead of creating new online communities, each year, you chosen
(which I think is a fantastic idea) to keep the alumni or previous members and ask
new members to join an existing online community. Could you describe the various
advantages umm... and/or disadvantages of this?
H: Yeah...umm….I think I’ve really seen the benefits of doing that yet.
Umm..fully...umm...there have been certain instances...umm...the idea I got from
both Paul and Scott. Umm...so Scott was doing it with his umm...what was his
called? They come in for a two week course which helps them get into employment
or helps them get into jobs.
J: Oh right, when he worked in employability.
H: So, yeah, so he was keeping the alumni of those communities because then,
when the new cohort came in, there were alumni that had jobs who could promote
that to the new guys saying, ‘this course is brilliant as I managed to get a job at such
and such.” So it kind of keeps that really positive atmosphere but it also keeps those
links with people who managed to get jobs from the programme so that the college
can see what they’re up to and what they’re kind of doing now so I think that’s a
perfect example of seeing the advantages really. Umm….I think...yeah...some of the
other advantages are just kind of the alumni members are sort of some of the people
who have been through the journey already [sic] they have kind of gained the
experience and expertise, the skills, perhaps the confidence and I think they’re able
to provide mentoring capacity for the younger students umm...I had an activity earlier
on in the year where I asked my alumni within the community to comment on some
of my new learners work umm...and their comments were brilliant. I didn’t even need
to have to go in in the end because the students were all kind of commenting on the
student's work and kind of offering advice about things they should kind of look at.
And, obviously, the advice that they’re offering is based on the kind of feedback that I
was offering to them obviously so its just kind of passing it on to the next group.
J: And I find it interesting how some kind of learners value sometimes the peers
comments umm...perhaps higher than the tutor’s.
H: Yeah-
J:-So there’s an argument that they’re going to engage with that more.
H: Yeah, exactly-
J:-Or they see it as sometimes equal to but-
H: Yeah, yeah. I think sometimes they don’t but it’s developing the advantage of that.
I think the more projects I do, the more I can kind of say well that’s the exact same

comment I’ve written for my own comment elsewhere as what I would have written.
Umm...I can kind of see. Yeah, it just needs a bit of a sell, I think.
J: So, I think we’re in agreement that the e-learning experience, as you sell it, what
you’re trying to [do is] not look like the expert. You’re trying to step away from that so
you don’t….you’re not the one they come to all the time because that’s not
developing their independent skills. They go out into the big wide world and you
worry about them because you’ve mollycoddled them on that course too much.
H: Yeah, yeah…
J: I know I used to do that and it didn’t develop them at all.
H: Yeah, yeah, yeah…
J: So….okay…
H: It’s difficult to do. It’s an easy trap to fall into, isn’t it?
J: Yeah.
H: You just really want to make sure they succeed.
J: Yeah, that they do well-
H: And they do well. But. Yeah.
J: Thank you. So why choose community based learning using a Google+ interface,
as opposed to something like Facebook or Twitter? Having said that, I know you use
Twitter actively with your learners, but-
H: Umm...I don’t use it as much with my learners actually, as I would like. A lot fewer
of them are on Twitter already than….I think they are...the reason for Google+ for me
is that my learners (and I think probably most learners in FE) still need to develop the
skills to interact effectively online and I think what a Google+ community really
provides is a safe environment that replicates the classroom so that failure is okay
and we can reflect openly and honestly. So it harnesses all the values that I would
try and incorporate in my classroom itself.
Umm...so they feel safe to have a go and try out those things and we can talk about
what works and what didn’t perhaps. Because I’ve instances where they’ve put out a
question and it hasn’t really been that obvious what they’ve been asking for. And
then there’s kind of been a couple of comments afterwards or either nobody has
commented on it because they didn’t understand it so we’ve been able to talk about
in class in terms of what’s made it more effective. Umm...one way I’ve started to step
them out of that realm now is to get them blogging more so I started the blogs for
AS. A2 were going to start that little bit more so they develop their online voice
elsewhere. Umm...some of them are at the point where they’re happy for me to
share their blogs publicly. Some of them just want to share them with me for now.

Umm...so its just about scaffolding it really. And getting them to that point where
they’re able to go and do it for themselves quite confidently [3]
I mean there’s also the other thing where it’s really easy to monitor because it’s all
like one community and one place. It’s one place where you have to check. So, that
does make it a little bit easier. And I guess the other reason (I’m just remembering
something I noted down). Facebook and Twitter, they are on it already, and they are
using it for personal reasons. So you kind of get a lot of their-
J: -Misconceptions-
H:-personal baggage, I suppose a little bit in that they bring along all their family and
friends and interests and hobbies and, actually [sic] and Google+ provides more of a
professional environment where we can practise in the right way...umm...for those
professional interactions that they’ll have.
J: You’re saying so, partly because we’re offering them an institutional logon and a
safe environment?
H: Yeah, yeah, exactly.
J: Okay so you are an advocate for e-learning and your role now transcends into
continuing professional development, staff training. How do you, especially through
the Pass it On [Staff CPD] programme, how do separate your digital voice as a
Tutor, for your learners, and a Trainer for staff?
H: Yeah. Umm…-
J:-Because you have two very distinct roles in the college
H: Yeah and I wondered about that when you asked me and I think. I had this
dilemma at the start of this year because my role had officially changed so my job
title was officially different to my teaching one. Umm….and I had concerns sort of
about my Twitter and my blog and kind of my students seeing that side of me
because it was really open and honest and reflective about what was going well with
my practise and what wasn’t and I kind of had concerns about that - them wanting to
see this because I thought ...should I really allow them to kind of see me-
J: -Yeah-
H: -reflecting on things that hadn’t gone well in the classroom. I had a real sort of
dilemma about it over the summer and then, I kind of just thought, ‘I think there are
benefits for both sides seeing the other side.’ So there are obvious benefits from the
teacher development side, staff seeing me interact with students and sort of having
that teacher voice….it gives them an indication of how I behave in that area. It
means that we can sort of share practice really so they can see what my voice was
like as a teacher. I think the other side of it. I think there are advantages in that my
students seeing me as somebody other than a teacher because they see sort of the
wider depth of my development, I suppose, so the different skills and attributes I’m

gaining in the workplace that aren’t maybe just what they perceive them to be.
Umm..yeah-
J: And I assume you can always adapt your…..
H: [sic]
J: Okay. Sorry to interrupt you.
H: No, go on.
J: So I assume you can always adapt your audience as well kind of like so, if it’s a
staff community, arguably the learners won't see you with your comments.
H: Yeah and some of those closed areas they’re not going to really see those
aspects so you can kind of tailor it a little bit.
J: And when I’ve read some of your blogs where you’ve talked about learning a new
pedagogy, learning new things….don’t you think that has such a positive umm...that
can have such a positive effect (if that's the right word) on the learners. They said
they read because Participant Y’s still developing...as a teacher-
H: Yeah, I think so.
J:-I need to...you know...because that whole idea of development shouldn’t just fall at
the learner-
H: Yeah and when I go into class and talk about the things where I’ve been to or ‘I’ve
been in a really difficult session this morning because I was teaching something new
and they were new teachers so they didn’t know,’ and I kind of quite open about
talking about those experiences because I think it’s important for them to know that
learning is that journey and you will continue to fail and you will continue to learn and
do all of that...so yeah...umm...it really is quite positive.
J: Umm...I know you’ve mentioned this already especially going into great depth
about the online lesson you created for your AS to A2 students but, in a nutshell,
how do you empower your learners to create a confident online voice?
So, you’ve talked about moving them over to the programme of Google+ and it's a
certain...I assume you’re setting up a certain amount of...umm...a certain range of
expectations that they need to follow?
H: Yeah, yeah, exactly.
J: And you was saying that you basically develop that across the year?
H: Yeah definitely because it’s gradual. I think for me it is the range of activities and
tools that will use it online because I’m not just asking them to engage with the
Moodle site. Umm...or any other one kind of single tool. In fact, we don’t just engage
with Google. There are so many different tools umm...and approaches that actually I

think that builds confidence. This means that whatever they’re presented with at
work they can say ‘well, I haven’t used this tool before but I have the confidence to
know that I can kind of work it out that I have been exposed to that tool and that tool
and that tool...maybe it will work similar to something they’ve used before so I think
that’s in my ethos in exposing them to different approaches. Umm...Yeah, I think it’s
different ways to gather technology as well. So they gather contents from the internet
like links and videos and images and they share the contents with the rest of the
class. Umm...other times it’s creating so...whether it’s presenting through
Infographics or a presentation or a video and at other points it’s kind of
communicating, collaborating, interacting...so there’s kind of different purposes
within that as well so they’re kind of developing online skills in lots of areas so they’re
not just communicating on the community with each other. So there’s lots of different
levels to their interactions online.
J: Can I just respond to that briefly then? You tell me what you think of this dilemma.
H: Yeah
J: This year, although I didn’t use multiple programmes (which I would like to
introduce in September), umm...the students had a logon for Google (which
obviously the learners always have) and they had a logon for their plagiarism
website and the idea of these learners having two separate usernames and two
separate passwords (this was probably because of the cohort I was working with:
this was Level 2 and you work with Level 3) was just mind boggling to them. So I
thought it, if I start introducing them to something like umm...it could be anything like
Joomag or Prezi or whatever it is...that usually requires its own separate logon (not
always)-
H: It can do, yeah-
J: -and its own separate password. So how have your learners coped with this
multiple logon, passwords dilemma?
H: Umm...a lot of them kind of haven’t coped particularly well. And I think it’s those
that are particularly resistant to technology are like even worse. Technology is
already a barrier to them and now they have to have six different logins and codes
and have to remember stuff. Umm...again but I think it is part of that learning
experience. I have to remember so many different passwords for so many different
things and I think it is a really key skill they need to develop. So it is a journey and a
difficult one because they often forget it and it is sort of a hassle and a pain but I
found an App recently called Passable which basically you can store all your
passwords in and put them in categories and gather them altogether. And I think I’m
going to use a tool like that with them or just a Google document where people have
passwords in it. I think they’re going to need to develop these strategies in the
workplace where they have to battle with all these logins.
J: So on that basis then, say if you steer away from the Passable App and move with
the Google Doc, would you then...would it be your rule of thumb for the
learners...you know they all have their generic password for Google….to change
their passwords? Would you get them to change that on Session 1?

H: Yeah, definitely.
J: Okay.
H: Umm...we talk about keeping safe online and regularly updating passwords.
J: Oh, do you?
H: Yeah. It’s something I’ve worked in a little bit more this year. We started it as part
of the induction and Lydia had kind of shared something on her phone so she found
out that somehow your iPhone can still track your location, even if you’ve turned
location services off?
J: Oh I didn’t know that.
H: No, it’s not something I knew. You should look at her post on the community so
I’ve now worked on her instructions so you have to go and turn it all on and then you
have to go in and turn one thing off and then turn it all off again. So there’s sometime
of little loophole but it started conversations like that about keeping
safe...umm...yeah...being online’s great but all of these kinds of things...umm…
J: What community was that? Was it on the A2?
H: Yeah, it was on the A2 I think. Yeah, it was the A2 one.
J: Okay, I’ll have a look at that. Thank you very much for your time and participating
in this interview.
H: That’s alright.
END OF INTERVIEW
Total time of interview: 43.38

Appendix 3 – Ethics Form
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Faculty Ethics form HSS.E2
Application for ethics approval for a research project involving human
participants
Master’s Students:
You should complete this form before you start your project and submit it to your supervisor.
If he or she is unable to sign it at this stage, the form will be referred to the Faculty Research Ethics
Officer, as above, who may seek further information and clarification from you. A decision form, E3,
will then be returned to you by e-mail.
All students should refer to the University Code of Practice on Ethical Standards for Research
involving Human Participants, available at www.brookes.ac.uk/res/ethics and Faculty guidelines,
which are included in the relevant on-line module or course handbook. You should bind a copy of the
approved form in your final project or dissertation submission.
1. Name of Principal Investigator
(Student):
Mrs Jessica Elizabeth Goddard (maiden name:
Selwood) Student No: 13125923
E-mail address: jessicagoddard1@hotmail.com
2. Name of Supervisor and e-mail
address:
Professor David Aldridge
E-mail address: daldridge@brookes.ac.uk
3. Working Project Title: How Can I Enhance the Quality of English
Teaching and Learning Through the Use of an
E-Community Platform?
4. Project Type (please specify course
and give module number):
Masters of Arts
in Education
Module No: P70002 (ED50)
Master’s
dissertation
√
Undergraduate
project:
Undergraduate
dissertation:
Foundation
degree project:
5. Background to and rationale of
proposed research:
I am particularly interested in how we can embrace e-
learning as a college. As we have increased our
provision for GCSE/iGCSE English from approx. 90
learners (2012-2013) to 350 (2013-2014), this is
fantastic time to introduce new ways of continuous

learning using online platforms such as Google
Communities through Google+.
6. ‘Gatekeeper’ permission
If you are conducting your research
within an organisation external to
Brookes, such as a school or
company, has permission been
obtained?
Attach a copy of the letter or e-mail
giving permission
Please see Appendix 4 which was formally submitted
to both my Assistant Principal and Head of CPD /
Sixth Form in October 2013. Funding for this project
was granted in November 2013. I will be conducting
the research in-house at my college as my
management have required me to conduct an in-house
research project, at College A, on the topic of how we
use e-learning.
7 Methods of data collection:
Attach a copy of your draft
questionnaire, interview schedule or
observation guidelines
Please refer to Appendix 1 for the Online
Questionnaire, offered to all iGCSE English learners,
and Appendix 2: for a full transcription of at least one
of the interviews. Appendix 2 also details the
interview schedule including the planned questions
(which were agreed with each interviewee, in
advance)
8 Participants involved in the research:
Include the target number, age range,
source and method of recruitment
and location of the research
iGCSE English learners (16+ and adult learners).
Questionnaire data was filled in online (both on and
off campus) but the learners needed to log in to via
their college Google account, in order to complete the
questionnaire. The location of staff and student
interviews were conducted within College A, outside
the traditional term-time schedule (but when the
college was still open to staff and students).
9 Are participants in a dependent
relationship) as an unequal power
relationship) with the researcher?
If yes, what steps will you take to
ensure that participation is entirely
voluntary and is not influenced by this
relationship?
Some respondents, to the questionnaire, were taught
by myself (for their iGCSE English studies) but their
contribution to the questionnaire was optional and it
was clearly explained the research was linked to an
external institution (e.g. not College A) and it wasn’t
linked to their course, in anyway.
So, in order to ensure that participation was entirely
voluntary, the request to interview and respond to an
online questionnaire was invited as evidence towards
my university-based research (as opposed to my role,
as a lecturer, at College A). In addition, a statement
(clarifying this) was issued to both interviewees and
recipients of the questionnaires, prior to the data
collection.
10. Potential benefits of the proposed
research:
Learners will become increasingly aware of online
tools available for their course, Tutors will improve
their pedagogy in this area, as a result, and I will host
a series of training sessions to all staff from my
findings (as requested by my Assistant Principal).

11 Potential adverse effects of the
proposed research and steps to be
taken to deal with them:
These are defined as risks greater
than those encountered during
normal day to day interactions and
could include possible psychological
stress or anxiety
Learners may be reluctant to participate so GCSE
English learners could be asked to contribute from
another college that are part of our Activate Learning
group.
None.
12. Plan for obtaining informed consent:
Please attach copy of your participant
information sheet and consent form
(Note consent forms are not needed
for questionnaires)
Letter by request and handout for the learners.
13. Steps to be taken to ensure
confidentiality of data:
Outline steps to be taken to ensure
confidentiality, privacy and anonymity
of data during collection and
publication of data
Pseudonyms will be used. College A will not be
identified by name or geographically identified.
Security on home laptop will be updated with the
latest anti-virus software in order to further protect
the identity of my learners.
Data will not be shared with any learners and will be
stored securely either on home PC (with password
protection and anti-virus) or stored securely on
Google Docs (using company username and
password; which no one else in the college
possesses).
14 Debriefing and/or feedback to
participants
What debriefing and support will
participants receive after the
research?
How will findings of the research be
made available to them?
For the interviews, interviewees will have a chance to
review transcriptions before data is analysed. For
questionnaires, data will be collated and analysed and
sent back in bulk to all participants in order to give
them a chance to respond to the findings. The MA
dissertation will be shared with all staff involved with
the research as well as with the Assistant Principal in
charge of T&L.
15 Data storage and security
How will you ensure safe data
storage during fieldwork and after
publication?
Explained in answer to Q. 13 (please see above).
Data will only be available on one portal (Google
Docs) so memory sticks / external hard drives will not
be used in case of loss or damage.
All materials submitted will be treated confidentially.
I have read and understood the University’s Code of Practice on Ethical Standards for
Research involving Human Participants
Signed: Principal Investigator
/Student

Appendix 4 – Proposal for Funded Research at College A
Submitted in October 2013 and revised the following month in order to meet the standards of
my FE College with reference to the CPD process and funding.
Proposal for Funded Research at College A.
Action Researcher (s):
Mrs Jessica Elizabeth
Goddard (previously
Selwood)
Department (s):
English and Mathematics
Getting Ready
1.Stimulus
What could go better? What
do you want to improve?
What’s concerning you? What
interests you?
(e.g. ‘My students give up too
easily’)
I am particularly interested in how we can embrace e-learning as a college.
As we have increased our provision for GCSE English from approx. 90
learners (2012-2013) to 350 (2013-2014), this is fantastic time to introduce
new ways of continuous learning using online platforms such as Google
Communities through Google+.
2.Hypothesis
What’s your hunch about the
issue you are focusing on?
(e.g. ‘Maybe I am doing too
much for my students’)
My hunch is that learners (both adult and on the 16-19 pathway) will
embrace e-learning as a tool. However, there needs to be a formal
introduction to the use of both Google+ and Google Drive. It is especially
important to educate our stand alone learners with these online platforms as
they have not gained exposure to such technology through, say, a full-time
vocational course. I will therefore work closely with the e-learning team in
order to rectify any issues we may encounter.
3.Research
What does the research
say? What do others in my
college/sector know about
this?
(Books, articles, Google
Scholar, libraries) CPD
Landing Moodle
As a college, we have embraced Google. Our diverse use of both Google
Drive and Google+ was fully demonstrated in our recent CPD ‘Show and
Tell’ event (on Assessment and Feedback) on Wednesday 27th November.
Research indicates that e-learning has a place in traditional learning but
there is very little evidence to test the usefulness and validity of e-learning
against summative assessment results.
My Focus
4.Research question
(e.g. ‘If I make it easier for
students to help themselves
and each other will their
resilience improve?’)
How Can You Enhance the Quality of English Teaching and Learning
through the Use of Google Communities?
5.Priorities
a. How does my question sit
within my current priorities?
b. Potential benefits to the
learners
My research question is comfortably intertwined with my role (at [FE
College]) as sole Course Leader for GCSE English. Currently I train English
Tutors who have previously taught Functional Skills. The training is
provided in order to improve these lecturers’ confidence and pedagogy,
regarding the teaching of GCSE. This also includes how we comfortably
include e-learning into our implicit pedagogy, as practitioners. The research
should benefit the entire English team as I plan to disseminate what I’ve
learned to the team, for a CPD / Pass it On session, in early Autumn 2014. I
am also planning to amalgamate this research with an evaluation of our

c. Line Managers comment on
potential impact of the
research
results, for GCSE English, due Summer 2014. In addition, I am currently
liaising with the e-learning team in order to set-up regular Google Drive /
Google Community training for our GCSE English Tutors.
My Enquiry
6.The intervention
What you will do? When?
How?
For example
Intervention will be implicit as I do not wish to cause any lecturers any
additional workload. To this end, feedback will be collected from both staff
and learners in through the use of either Google Forms or Survey Monkey. I
may call on the resources and expertise of Sarah Owen in order to help me
evaluate the results.
I have also volunteered to take on the role of a Staff Survey Champion (for
English & Maths). Therefore, I will apply the same techniques when
analysing both learner and staff feedback for this research.
I have also hosted a session, for the English & Maths Department, on how
we can improve our practice. This is based on learner feedback we have
amalgamated from Live Course Review.
[FE College] really values learner voice and I plan to incorporate the results
into my assignment. The research will be conducted from late February /
early March until late April / early May.
7.Evaluation Methods
How will you notice, measure
and describe what happens?
I will measure how learners have engaged with Google+ / our new GCSE
English Google Community by evaluating learning through the following
strands:
- Evaluating our Learner’s Computer Literacy (and will lack of it become a
barrier to engaging with Google+?)
- Interviewing Learners Before they Join Google+ (and After)
- Analysing the quality of engagement within the Community threads
- Assessing whether learners prefer traditional learning (in the classroom) or
alternative learning (online)
- Tackling e-learning can be implemented to target surface learning in order
to achieve deep learning.
- To what extent have we achieved blended learning by launching,
monitoring and engaging with a Google Community (for the GCSE English
course)?
Anticipated cost of the
research (please explain)
£540 for tuition fees (through Oxford Brookes University) and £100
towards the purchase of relevant critical reading. Total = £640
Which cross college
Priorities does this research
meet?
Please tick applicable boxes below.
Raising Success √
Employability & Enterprise
Progression – Our Students
Go Further
√
Supporting student success √
Please explain how your
research will meet the
following Group Strategic
Priorities.
Raising Success
As the compiling of this research will assess how well learners have
achieved from 2013-2014. My conclusion will also include what the English
and Maths team can do in order to improve the quality of e-learning for
2014-2015.
Supporting student success
As future GCSE English learners will benefit from this research; provided
the information from the research study is delivered in an effective fashion
to the GCSE English Team.

Progression – Our Students Go Further
E-learning is now an embedded culture in industry. Asking our learners to
participate in blended learning will ultimately prepare them for the future
and will allow our learners to go further with their learning.
Our students are professional
and entrepreneurially
minded. Their personal skills
and expertise make them
employable and successful
citizens.
We are developing the professionalism and entrepreneurialism of our
learners by offering alternative ways to learn using various online platforms.
By asking learners to formally engage in debates and discussions, we are
exposing our learners to the professional world. Google+ is also an open
forum where some learners may have more confidence to articulate their
views (as opposed to a traditional classroom setting).
We have reputation of
innovation and highly
effective teaching, learning
and assessment that means our
programmes are always in
demand.
[FE College] have taken an innovative and rapid step, in e-learning, by
offering an abundance of of online Google platforms. Again, the research
study will explore how the Tutor’s introduction to e-learning will impact on
the deep learning of the learner themselves. Our publication of our
achievements online should also mean our GCSE programmes will always
be in demand.
By establishing learning
companies we create
stimulating learning
environments and provide
employment for our students.
The fact that [FE College] has recently established learning companies
should inspire our GCSE English learners to go further with their studies.
[FE College] is now becoming a commercially successful model and should
be offered as a soon-to-be-successful business model for our aspiring
learners; who wish to move onto industry post-study.
We are leaders and shapers in
our communities.
Through this research study, my aim is to shape the future of our e-learner
community as well as lead my contemporaries in the successful delivery of
GCSE English (both online and face-to-face).
‘If my proposal is successful
I agree to disseminate my
findings to colleagues as
advised by CPD’
Signed:
Date:
Resources: -
Teaching & Learning Website
20.10.2013
‘ As the above person(s)
Manager I agree to support
the individual(s) throughout
their research’
Signed:
Date:
Manager X [Electronic Signature]
Interim Head of Department – English and Maths
01.11.2013

Appendix 5 – Learners’ Views, on Social Networking Platforms, from College A
“I think these days Facebook and Twitter are the best platforms for social media, I definitely
think if there was a group on there instead of Google, students would pay a lot more
attention to it. When students see notifications on their phones from Google, they most likely
ignore it, however when they see a notification on Facebook or twitter, their iPhone is in their
hand so quickly, and they're totally checking that notification out!”
“no people will always crave an escape from their professional lives and if people are put
into a situation where professional and personal lives are mixed together people will drift
away and find another way to escape the pressures of their professional lives”
“Many students use social networking websites such as Facebook, Twitter etc. It might be a
good idea to think about expanding the iGCSE English community to other social networking
websites. Google+ has still not become a very popular social networking option amongst
students. Facebook would appeal to more students and you'd probably see more frequent
contributions into the the community.”
“I think we can create a group in apps such as Whatsapp, Viber, or any others which directly
sends notifications to student's mobile phones. There, teachers can message them to
remind about their homework or about course topic that is going to be discussed that day. It
makes the student active and be up-to date in their assignments.”99

Dissertation MAed JEGoddard June 2016

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Dissertation MAed JEGoddard June 2016

Dissertation MAed JEGoddard June 2016