iLearn Evaluation Report
ILEARN STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2014
Produced by Jayde Cahir (Chief Investigator), Helen Carter (Co-Investigator), Cathy Rytmeister (Statistical analysis
and advice), Lucy Arthur (Faculty iLearn Support Coordination) and Rebecca Ritchie (Central iLearn Support
Coordination).
May 2015
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 2
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Demographic Details ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Technologies used to access iLearn: Student Survey Results ......................................................................... 4
Student Satisfaction with iLearn ...................................................................................................................... 5
Student Satisfaction with iLearn as a support for learning and teaching ...................................................... 7
Student Experience with iLearn ..................................................................................................................... 10
Statistics on the use of iLearn Functions: data from the iLearn system .................................................. 10
iLearn Functions to organise study........................................................................................................... 12
iLearn Functions to engage with unit content .......................................................................................... 14
iLearn Functions for engagement with learning activities ....................................................................... 15
Student Satisfaction with Services and Support ............................................................................................ 17
Student Satisfaction with the Online Unit Guide (iTeach) ........................................................................... 18
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................................20
Appendix 1: iLearn Student Experience Survey Questions ......................................................................20
Appendix 2: Survey Advertisements .......................................................................................................... 25
Appendix 3: Improvements to the iLearn platform .................................................................................. 26
Appendix 4: Statistical Analysis of Student Respondents Demographics ............................................... 26
Appendix 5: Statistical Analysis of Technologies Students used to access iLearn .................................. 28
Appendix 6: Statistical Analysis of Student Satisfaction with iLearn ...................................................... 36
Appendix 7: Statistical Analysis of Student Experience with iLearn .......................................................40
Appendix 8: Statistical Analysis of Student Experience with Online Unit Guide ................................... 45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Student recommendation of Macquarie University's use of iLearn.................................................... 6
Figure 3: Student Satisfaction with iLearn for access to unit content ................................................................ 7
Figure 4: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for organising study ................................................... 8
Figure 5: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with fellow
students .................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 6: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with teaching
staff ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 7: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for engagement in learning activities ........................ 9
Figure 8: Students use of iLearn Functions ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 9: Student satisfaction with OneHelp for technical issues with iLearn ................................................ 17
Figure 10: Student satisfaction with locating 'self-help' resources ................................................................... 17
Figure 11: Satisfaction with student 'self-help' resources .................................................................................. 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The iLearn Student Experience Survey Demographic Information for 2012 - 2014 ........................... 3
Table 2: Student ownership and access to technology and Internet .................................................................. 4
Table 3: Technologies used to access iLearn according to the 2014 student survey .......................................... 5
Table 4: The percentage of units that used the various iLearn functions ......................................................... 10
Table 5: Student experience with iLearn Functions in Session 2, 2014 ............................................................ 11
Table 6: Students levels of agreement with the usefulness of iLearn Functions .............................................. 11
Table 7: Student satisfaction with the Online Unit Guide ................................................................................. 18
2
ILEARN STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY
The 2014 iLearn Student Experience Survey is part of a wider Learning and Teaching Centre (LTC) Quality
Enhancement strategy for Macquarie University’s Learning Management System (LMS) and learning
technologies more generally. In 2014, iLearn had moved into the second year of its operational phase thus
the focus of the 2014 survey was to evaluate student satisfaction with:

the functionality of iLearn from a teaching practice and technical perspective;

the University’s services and support for iLearn; and

to document trends in use to inform future needs in terms of functionality and support.
This focus aligns with the findings and recommendations of the iLearn Implementation 2012: Evaluation
Report and the iLearn Evaluation Report 2013 in order to capture the needs and expectations of students
and to continue the ongoing quality enhancement cycle.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This evaluation study examined the second year of the operationalisation phrase of the iLearn platform.
Data for this evaluation study was compiled through the iLearn Student Experience Survey (Appendix 1).
Invitations to complete the iLearn Student Experience Survey were sent over a three-week period in Session
2, 2014, between the 8th and 29th October. The purpose of this survey was to:

monitor engagement with iLearn;

evaluate satisfaction with services and support; and

map changes in learning and teaching across the University.
The surveys were sent to a random sample of 25% of the student population using iLearn, excluding
students in the Applied Finance Centre, Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) in Hong Kong,
Exchange Students studying in the Northern Hemisphere and International College of Management Sydney
(ICMS) students. The student sample also excluded MGSM, at their request, as they were running their own
surveys. This approach to selecting the sample aligned with the creation of student sample groups in 2012
and 2013. As in previous years, the survey was delivered through University evaluation system, Teaching
Evaluation for Development Service (TEDS), using EvaSys.
DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS
In Session 2, 2014 invitations were sent to 9,380 and a total of 481 responses were received, which
represented 5.6% of the sample.
iLearn Student Experience
Survey
Faculty of Arts
Faculty of Science
Faculty of Human Science
Faculty
of
Business
Economics
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Internal
External
OUA
International
&
Session 2, 2012
482 respondents
Session 2, 2013
902 respondents
Session 2, 2014
481 respondents
31.4%
18.4%
26.6%
23.4%
28.6%
17.4%
26.4%
27.6%
29.9%
16.1%
32.8%
21.3%
71%
29%
74.1%
25.9%
80%
20%
68%
26.8%
2.9%
16.4%
77.6%
21.5%
0.3%
15.5%
79%
25.8%
0.4%
11.4%
First Year
28.5%
36.7%
37.2%
Second Year & Beyond
71.5%
63.3%
62.8%
Table 1: The iLearn Student Experience Survey Demographic Information for 2012 - 2014
3
Further statistical analysis was conducted to ascertain the distribution of student responses from:
undergraduate / postgraduate, internal / external, and first year / second year and beyond within each
Faculty (see Appendix 4). The results showed that:

Undergraduate students are under-represented (and postgraduate students over-represented)
amongst Faculty of Human Sciences respondents;

Postgraduate students are under-represented (and undergraduate students over-represented)
amongst Faculty of Science respondents;

Internal (only) students are under-represented (and external only students over-represented)
amongst Faculty of Arts respondents;

External (only) students are under-represented (and internal only students over-represented)
amongst Faculty of Business and Economics respondents.

First year students are over-represented (and later year students under-represented) amongst
Faculty of Business and Economics respondents;

First year students are possibly slightly over-represented (and later year students slightly underrepresented) amongst Faculty of Arts respondents; and

Second and later year students are over-represented (and first year students under-represented)
amongst Faculty of Human Sciences and Faculty of Science respondents.
TECHNOLOGIES USED TO ACCESS ILEARN: STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS
In the first instance, we asked what technologies the students own or have access to. The rational was that
students are not going to access iLearn via Smartphones or iPads etc unless they have access to this
technology. The tick-box question was: “I own or have access to the following devices (please
indicate ownership or level of access - note that we are assuming that ownership includes
regular and reliable access)”, as this would also impact on what technologies they use to access
iLearn. The tick-box question was: “My off-campus access to broadband internet is: Regular and
reliable; Irregular and/or unreliable; Minimal”. The surveyed students’ responses to these
questions are listed below:
Technologies students have
access to
owner
Regular,
reliable access
Some, unreliable
access
Little or no
access
89.9%
4.0%
1.3%
4.8%
87.8%
49.1%
5.0%
7.9%
2.9%
8.5%
4.2%
34.5%
34.2%
15.7%
23.4%
3.1%
15.1%
5.7%
27.3%
75.5%
Regular and
reliable
Irregular and/or
unreliable
Minimal
My off-campus access to broadband internet is
91.4%
7.6%
(n=475)
Table 2: Student ownership and access to technology and Internet
1.1%
Smartphone (e.g. iPhone,
Android, Blackberry) (n=477)
Laptop computer (n=477)
Tablet (e.g. iPad, Android or
similar) (n=470)
Desktop computer (n=465)
Portable e-book reader (e.g.
Kindle) (n=453)
Student Internet Access
The results show that a high percentage of the surveyed students (89.9%) own a SmartPhone and laptop
computer (87.7%), however, these are not necessarily the devices they use to access iLearn. In order to
ascertain the technologies used to access iLearn, the survey respondents were asked to: “Please indicate
the frequency with which you use the following devices to access iLearn”: University-provided
computer on campus (e.g. office, lab, Library); Desktop or laptop computer at other location/s (e.g. home);
My own laptop on campus using OneNet (MQ wireless network); Smartphone (iPhone, Android,
Blackberry) at MQ using OneNet; Smartphone (iPhone, Android, Blackberry) at other location/s; Tablet
(e.g. iPad, Android or similar) at MQ using OneNet; Tablet (e.g. iPad, Android or similar) at other
location/s; Other device/network combination - please specify.
4
Technologies used to access iLearn
Desktop or laptop computer at other locations (n =
480)
Smartphone using another network provider (n =
473)
My own laptop using OneNet (n = 478)
Smartphone at MQ using OneNet (n = 475)
Tablet at MQ using OneNet (n = 473)
Tablet at other locations (n = 473)
University provided computer on campus (n = 473)
Other device/network combination (n = 437)
At least
once a
day
65.2%
A few
times a
week
25.4%
A few
times a
month
2.9%
A few times a
semester
1.9%
Never
or
rarely
4.6%
24.9%
20.5%
10.6%
9.3%
34.7%
23.8%
22.5%
10.4%
9.3%
3.8%
3.0%
27.8%
29.7%
15.2%
9.3%
15.9%
2.1%
11.7%
12.0%
7.2%
5.7%
11.2%
0.9%
12.1%
11.4%
6.3%
6.4%
20.9%
1.1%
24.5%
24.4%
60.9%
69.3%
48.2%
92.9%
Table 3: Technologies used to access iLearn according to the 2014 student survey
The table above relates to the use of various technologies to access iLearn, as it is essential to monitor if the
system is meeting the needs of new technological devices and if the network is able to support the system
and devices in all circumstances. The student responses to the last three surveys have shown a consistent
approach to which technologies are relied upon to access iLearn with ‘Desktop or laptop computer at other
locations’ being the most popular choice. The use of Smartphones using OneNet has slowly increased. In
Session 2, 2012 a total of 9.1% of the students surveyed indicated that they access iLearn via their
Smartphone ‘at least once a day’. In Session 2, 2013 15.3% of the students surveyed said they use their
Smartphone ‘at least once a day’. In Session 2, 2014 a total of 22.5% of the students surveyed indicated that
they are accessing iLearn via their Smartphones ‘at least once a day’. This increase would not only be due to
the further proliferation of mobile phones but also the introduction of a mobile friendly iLearn site. In
response to ‘other device or network combination’ a total of 92.9% of students surveyed selected ‘never or
rarely’. There were fourteen comments in the ‘please specify’ section, for example, Smartwatch and internet
networks outside of campus were listed.
According to statistical analysis of the survey results there were some significant variations between
frequency of use of different devices and networks to access iLearn. Students in the Faculties of Science and
Business and Economics indicate frequent use of ‘University computers on campus’ in greater proportion
than students in the other faculties; a greater proportion of Faculty of Arts students and Faculty of Human
Science students use them "never or rarely". This seems to reflect differences in the extent of on-campus
computer laboratory provision in these faculties. Students from the Faculty of Business and Economics are
more likely to indicate frequent use of: 'Own laptop at MQ using OneNet', 'Smartphone at MQ using
OneNet'; 'Smartphone using another network provider'; 'Tablet at MQ using OneNet'; and 'Tablet using
another network provider' than students from other faculties. It is important to highlight that there were no
statistical differences in student ownership of Smartphones or Tablets. Students in the Faculty of Arts and
the Faculty of Science were more likely to indicate infrequent or no use of 'Own laptop at MQ using
OneNet', and again, there were no statistical differences in student ownership of laptops. Statistical analysis
of the survey results between undergraduate/postgraduate, Internal / External and year of enrolment
revealed further significant variations between frequency of use of different devices and networks to access
iLearn. Undergraduate students are more likely to access iLearn using 'Own laptop at MQ using OneNet'
and 'Smartphone at MQ using OneNet' than postgraduate students. Postgraduate students are more likely
to access iLearn ‘at least once a day’ via a 'Tablet using another network provider' than undergraduate
students. Internal students are more likely to access iLearn using all devices other than ‘Desktop or laptop
computer at other locations’ than external students. Furthermore, external students are more likely to own
a laptop than internal students (see Appendix 5).
At the end of the survey were two open-ended questions:
 “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377)
 “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293)
In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” There was
only one comment from a student saying they liked how iLearn was mobile friendly. In response to “What
improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” There were a total of eight student responses, which
referred to better smartphone and tablet integration, ease of use on the iPhone including improving access
to grades, quizzes and calendar.
STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH ILEARN
In order to ascertain student satisfaction with iLearn, students were asked to indicate their level of
agreement with each of the following statements about your overall experience with iLearn:
 The way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience; and
5

I would recommend Macquarie University’s use of iLearn as an example of good practice to
other universities.
The way iLearn is used enhances my
learning experience
2014, S2 (n = 462)
2013, S2 (n = 887)
2012, S2 (n = 469)
71.5%
79.5%
71.3%
Agreement
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
Disagreement
14.9%
15.4%
19.8%
13.6%
5.1%
9.0%
Figure 1: The way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience
Student satisfaction with the way iLearn enhances their learning experience, according to the students
surveyed, shows that the level of disagreement with ‘the way iLearn is used enhances my learning
experience’ has almost tripled since 2013, which requires further investigation. In Session 2, 2012, 71.3% of
students agreed that the way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience, and in Session 2, 2013, 79.5%
of students agreed with this statement and in Session 2, 2014 a total of 71.5% of students surveyed agreed
with this statement.
I would recommend Macquarie
University's use of iLearn
2014, S2 (n = 459)
2013, S2 (n = 885)
74.1%
80.8%
69.0%
Agreement
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
Disagreement
2012, S2 (n = 470)
13.3%
13.2%
20.6%
12.6%
6.0%
10.4%
Figure 2: Student recommendation of Macquarie University's use of iLearn
Students’ responses to ‘I would recommend Macquarie University’s use of iLearn as good practice’ reveal
minor variations from 2012-2013 results. Statistical analysis revealed that postgraduate students are less
likely to recommend Macquarie University’s use of iLearn as good practice than undergraduate students
(p<0.05) and furthermore, first year students are more likely to recommend Macquarie University’s use of
iLearn as good practice than students in their second year and beyond (p<0.01). (see Appendix 6).
6
STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH ILEARN AS A SUPPORT FOR LEARNING AND
TEACHING
In order to ascertain student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for learning and teaching, the scaled
questions focused on five areas. Students were asked to: “Please indicate your level of agreement
with each of the following statements about your overall experience with iLearn”.
 I am satisfied with the way iLearn enables access to unit information and content.
 I am satisfied with iLearn as a support for organising my study.
 I am satisfied with the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with my fellow
students.
 I am satisfied with the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with teaching
staff.
 I am satisfied with the way iLearn supports my engagement with learning activities.
Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for learning and teaching, according to the students surveyed
in 2012-2014, has shown some variation to the 2013 survey results, due to a rise in the neutral/mixed
feelings and disagreement. The only repetitive comments in the open-ended responses that may provide
some insight into this were the student complaints regarding the inconsistent use of iLearn, otherwise a
majority of the student comments were positive. Again, this requires further investigation.
iLearn enables access to unit information
and content
2014, S2 (n = 471)
2013, S2 (n = 896)
79.4%
Agreement
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
Disagreement
2012, S2 (n = 473)
90.4%
83.7%
8.7%
5.7%
10.6%
11.9%
3.9%
5.7%
Figure 3: Student Satisfaction with iLearn for access to unit content
Student responses to this scaled question indicate the levels of disagreement have tripled since 2013.
Statistical analysis revealed that first year students are satisfied to a greater extent with the way iLearn
enables access to unit information and content than students in their second year and beyond (p<0.025)
(see Appendix 6).
7
iLearn as a support for organising my study
2014, S2 (n = 471)
2013, S2 (n = 896)
2012, S2 (n = 473)
74.3%
Agreement
84.3%
68.9%
12.5%
13.4%
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
21.1%
Disagreement
13.2%
5.9%
9.9%
Figure 4: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for organising study
Student responses to this scaled question indicate the levels of disagreement have almost tripled since
2013.
iLearn supports interaction and
communication with my fellow students
2014, S2 (n = )
2013, S2 (n = 889)
64.8%
71.4%
69.2%
Argeement
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
Disagreement
2012, S2 (n = 473)
21.0%
18.6%
20.5%
14.2%
10.0%
10.4%
Figure 5: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with
fellow students
Student responses to this scaled question indicates some minor variations, considering in Session 2, 2013,
71.4% of students surveyed agreed that they are satisfied with iLearn as a support for interaction and
communication with fellow students, and in Session 2, 2014, 64.8% of students agreed with this statement.
8
iLearn supports interaction and
communication with teaching staff
2014, S2 (n = 463)
2013, S2 (n = 889)
2012, S2 (n = 473)
67.2%
74.2%
70.4%
Argeement
17.9%
16.8%
17.3%
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
Disagreement
14.9%
9.0%
12.3%
Figure 6: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with
teaching staff
Student responses to this scaled question indicates, again, some minor variations, considering in Session 2,
2013, 74.2% of students surveyed agreed that they are satisfied with iLearn as a support for interaction and
communication with teaching staff, and in Session 2, 2014, 67.2% of students agreed with this statement.
Furthermore, statistical analysis revealed that students in Faculty of Human Sciences are more satisfied
with the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with teaching staff than students in other
Faculties (p<0.025) (see Appendix 6).
iLearn supports my engagement in learning
activities
2014, S2 (n = 467)
2013, S2 (n = 886)
71.1%
78.6%
70.2%
Agreement
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
Disagreement
2012, S2 (n = 470)
16.3%
16.6%
20.9%
12.6%
4.8%
9.0%
Figure 7: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for engagement in learning activities
Student responses to this scaled question indicate the levels of disagreement have increased since 2013.
However, students in Faculty of Human Sciences are more satisfied with the way iLearn supports their
engagement with learning activities than students in other Faculties (p<0.05). Statistical analysis also
revealed that first year students are satisfied to a greater extent with the way iLearn supports their
engagement with learning activities than students in their second year and beyond (p<0.05) (see Appendix
6).
9
STUDENT EXPERIENCE WITH ILEARN
This section focuses on student engagement with iLearn using four forms of data sourced from: the iLearn
system; the scaled responses; open ended responses; and statistical analysis by Faculty based on the scaled
responses in the survey.
STATISTICS ON THE USE OF ILEARN FUNCTIONS: DATA FROM THE ILEARN SYSTEM
The percentages listed in the table below were generated through the iLearn system. The purpose of
generating this data is to compare the results between the use of the iLearn functions with the surveyed
student responses to the ‘usefulness’ of each iLearn function. This comparison will not be possible for some
of the iLearn functions, for example, there is no data available on Twitter Feeds, RSS Feeds,
Announcements, Videos, Links to eReserve, Gradebook and Calendar. This is because they are considered
to be ‘Moodle block instances’, thus it is problematic to extract this information from the iLearn platform.
There are also multiple assignments used in each unit and the introduction of two classifications for
assignments in 2013, however, the system showed in Session 2, 2014 there were: 317 units with one or
more moodle assignments and 641 units with one or more Turnitin assignments. This equates to 95.6% of
iLearn units had either one or more moodle assignments or one or more Turnitin assignments in Session 2,
2014.
S2, 2012
S2, 2013
S2, 2014
Number of iLearn Units
1,160
1,034
1,002
iLearn Functions –
used…
Discussion Forum
99.0%
99.1%
99.9%
--------
--------
95.6%
Labels
94.1%
90.3%
94.0%
Links to readings & external sites
83.5%
89.2%
92.5%
Echo360
61.3%
67.9%
75.0%
Turnitin (includes GradeMark)
31.0%
47.8%
61.6%
Dialogue Module
42.5%
36.9%
38.2%
Quiz
18.8%
20.6%
25.5%
Grouping/Groups
4.9%
6.2%
7.0%
Blog
2.4%
4.4%
5.5%
Chat
4.4%
6.7%
5.0%
Wiki
2.4%
4.3%
3.5%
Book Module
3.2%
3.7%
3.5%
Database
2.0%
2.4%
2.3%
Workshop Tool
1.2%
1.5%
1.4%
Lesson
0.6%
0.9%
1.0%
The % of units that
Online Assignment Submission
Table 4: The percentage of units that used the various iLearn functions
In the 2014 Student iLearn Experience Survey, we asked students to indicate if they had used certain iLearn
functions during Session 2, 2014 before asking them to rate the usefulness of the tool, thus we are not able
to compare this data to the data gathered from the 2012 and 2013 surveys. However, re-framing the
question in this way provides us with further insights with regards to what functions are being used and if
the students find them useful for either ‘organising their study’; ‘helping them engage with their unit
content’ or ‘assists their engagement with learning activities’. Below is a table with the number of
respondents to each question and the percentage of those respondents that either used or didn’t use the
iLearn Function or if they are not sure or don’t know the iLearn function. The table is organised to show the
highest to lowest use of the iLearn functions.
10
Student Experience with
iLearn Functions in
Session 2, 2014
Yes
No
No sure /
Don’t
know this
function
1.9%
Online Assignment
95.6%
2.5%
Submission
Grades
91.6%
4.8%
3.6%
Announcements
91.0%
4.6%
4.4%
Lecture recordings
90.0%
7.3%
2.7%
(Echo360)
Turnitin
88.4%
7.4%
4.2%
Discussion forums
88.2%
9.5%
2.3%
Links to unit readings
78.1%
15.8%
6.1%
Quizzes
77.1%
15.8%
7.1%
Videos (linked or
68.3%
22.2%
9.4%
embedded)
Links to external websites
67.4%
21.9%
10.6%
Dialogue module
52.0%
26.6%
21.4%
Lessons (presenting
50.7%
20.0%
29.3%
information)
Database
41.2%
29.0%
29.8%
Book module
33.1%
22.9%
44.0%
Calendar
27.9%
39.8%
32.3%
Wiki
18.7%
46.9%
34.3%
Workshop tool
18.6%
48.7%
32.7%
Blog
17.4%
51.3%
34.4%
Glossary
15.5%
37.5%
47.0%
Chat
10.1%
54.2%
35.7%
Twitter feeds
7.8%
61.9%
30.3%
Table 5: Student experience with iLearn Functions in Session 2, 2014
N
476
477
479
479
476
475
475
476
477
470
473
475
476
477
480
475
474
478
477
474
475
The table below represents the surveyed students’ levels of agreement with the ‘usefulness’ of each iLearn
Function. Again, the table is organised the same way as the table above, that is, to show the highest to
lowest use of the iLearn functions and number of student responses.
Student Experience with
Agreement
Neutral /
Disagreem
N
iLearn Functions in
Mixed
ent
Session 2, 2014
Feelings
Online Assignment
74.9%
14.7%
10.3%
455
Submission
Grades
79.6%
13.3%
7.1%
437
Announcements
59.0%
21.7%
19.3%
424
Lecture recordings
85.6%
8.4%
6.0%
431
(Echo360)
Turnitin
59.0%
21.7%
19.3%
424
Discussion forums
72.5%
17.5%
10.1%
418
Links to unit readings
80.1%
13.3%
6.5%
368
Quizzes
78.9%
13.2%
7.9%
370
Videos (linked or
76.1%
17.4%
6.4%
327
embedded)
Links to external websites
67.5%
24.1%
8.4%
323
Dialogue module
71.1%
23.3%
5.6%
249
Lessons (presenting
79.9%
13.1%
6.9%
244
information)
Database
84.1%
10.8%
5.1%
195
Book module
74.2%
18.2%
7.6%
159
Calendar
58.2%
26.9%
14.9%
134
Wiki
59.7%
30.4%
9.7%
92
Workshop tool
77.2%
16.3%
6.5%
92
Blog
65.4%
24.7%
9.9%
81
Glossary
68.9%
25.7%
5.4%
74
Chat
78.4%
11.8%
9.8%
51
Twitter feeds
40.0%
25.0%
35.0%
40
Table 6: Students levels of agreement with the usefulness of iLearn Functions
11
These results show that while there were a high percentage of students that do not know about certain
iLearn Functions but the students that did use them found them useful (see Dialogue Module and
Glossary). Additionally, the table above also shows that while there were a high percentage of students that
did use certain iLearn Functions and did not find them useful (see Announcements and Turnitin). In the
case of Turnitin, this could be attributed to the way the question was phrase and how it is used, for example,
the survey question was: “Please indicate your level of agreement with: “Using Turnitin helps
me with assignment preparation” however, if Turnitin is only set up as a policing mechanism rather
than open submissions to check work then Turnitin would not help with assignment preparation. The graph
below displays the percentage of students who had used the various iLearn functions with the percentage of
those students who agreed the iLearn functions were useful.
Students use of iLearn Functions
120.00%
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Students who had used the function in S2, 2014
Students who agreed that it was useful
Figure 8: Students use of iLearn Functions
While there were a high percentage of students that did use certain iLearn Functions like Announcements
and Turnitin and did not find them useful, there must have also been a misinterpretation of the survey
question as there were very few students that used Lessons, Databases, Book Module, Wiki, Workshop tool,
Blog and Chat, as the iLearn system data shows, but a large number of these surveyed students agreed that
these iLearn functions are useful.
In the following three sections ‘iLearn Functions to organise study’, ‘iLearn functions to engage with unit
content’ and ‘iLearn functions for engagement in learning activities’ each of the iLearn functions are
analysed using data sourced from: the iLearn system (see Table 4); the scaled responses; open ended
responses; and statistical analysis based on the scaled responses in the survey.
ILEARN FUNCTIONS TO ORGANISE STUDY
The iLearn Functions that were categorised as assisting students in organising their study were: Online
Assignment Submission; Grades; Announcements; Turnitin and Calendar. The wording for Turnitin, as
mentioned above, was “Please indicate your level of agreement with: “Using Turnitin helps me
with assignment preparation” although, it was placed in this category in the survey.
ONLINE ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION
The results showed that out of the 96.5% of students surveyed that had used Online Assignment
Submission (n=476) a total of 74.9% of students agreed that Online Assignment Submission helped them
organise their study (n=455). The system data shows that 95.6% of iLearn units had either one or more
moodle assignments or one or more Turnitin assignments in Session 2, 2014. There were twenty-two
comments by students that related to Online Assignment Submission in response to “What aspects of
iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). These comments focused on
convenience of being able to submit an assignment online. There were six comments by students that
12
related to Online Assignment Submission “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293).
These student comments focused on the need for all assignments to be handed in via iLearn and
consistency across units. One student also commented that some of their software they need to use for their
assignments are not compatible with iLearn, such as PowerPoint presentations, thus they have to be
emailed to the lecturer. Statistical analysis revealed that undergraduate students found Online Assignment
Submission helped them organise their study to a greater extent than postgraduate students (p<0.01) (see
Appendix 7). Furthermore, results by attendance mode showed that internal students found Online
Assignment Submission helped them organise their study to a greater extent than external students
(p<0.025) (see Appendix 7).
GRADES
The results showed that out of the 91.6% of students surveyed that had used Grades (n=477) a total of
79.6% of students agreed that being able to view their grades helped them organise their study (n=437).
There is no system data for Grades because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance. There were thirtythree comments by students that related to Grades in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most
valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). These comments focused on this function providing easy
access to grades. There were twenty-seven comments by students that related to Grades “What
improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). The students’ comments focused mainly on
teaching staff use of Grades, specifically, consistency in use and keeping it updated. In relation to technical
improvements the comments referred to an improved navigation within iLearn to Grades and being able to
access Grades on their iPhones. Statistical analysis revealed that undergraduate students found Grades
helped them organise their study to a greater extent than postgraduate students (p<0.025) (see Appendix
7).
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The results showed that out of the 91% of students surveyed that had used Announcements (n=479) a total
of 59.0% of students agreed that being able to view their Announcements helped them organise their study
(n=424). There is no system data for Announcements because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance.
There were thirty-three comments by students that related to Announcements in response to “What aspects
of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). Most comments focused on
how the announcements keep them informed by providing an effective way to receive important
communications from their lecturers and tutors, although there were a few comments complimenting the
structure and saying how much announcements are appreciated. There were seventeen comments by
students that related to Announcements, in response to “What improvements would you like to see in
iLearn?” (n = 293). The main focus of these student responses were the organisation of announcements and
how it would be beneficial to combine all the new announcements on the iLearn homepage once the student
has logged in. For example, one student said: "Recent announcements" section on the home page - this
would make it quicker and easier to see if any teachers have made any important announcements such as a
cancelled tutorial or room change”.
TURNITIN
The results showed that out of the 88.4% of students surveyed that had used Turnitin (n=476) a total of
59% of students agreed that using Turnitin helps them with their assignment preparation (n=424). The
iLearn system data showed that 61.6% of units had Turnitin, which would explain why there were a high
percentage of students surveyed who had used this function. In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you
find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377), there were twelve comments by students that
related to Turnitin. Most of the comments just listed Turnitin but one student said: “Turnitin is especially
valuable - being able to upload assessments and having an electronic record of grades and comments is
invaluable - No printing required, no travelling to the campus to physically submit and then pick up the
assessment, and no fear that the hard-copy version may be lost. Unfortunately, not all units utilise this
amazing function”. There were nine comments by students that related to Turnitin “What improvements
would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). These comments referred to: quicker resubmission time than 24
hours, ability to check the originality, ability to do pre-submission checks, and that it does not facilitate
adequate tutor feedback. Statistical analysis revealed that students in the Faculty of Business and
Economics found Turnitin helped them prepare assignments (p<0.05) to a greater extent than students in
other Faculties. Undergraduate students found Turnitin helped them prepare assignments to a greater
extent than postgraduate students (p<0.05) but there were also significant differences in the usage, as
undergraduate students use Turnitin more than postgraduate students (p<0.01). Furthermore, results by
attendance mode showed that internal students found Turnitin helped them with their assignment
preparation to a greater extent than external students (p<0.025). The results by year of enrolment showed
that ‘second year and beyond’ have a higher usage of Turnitin than first year students (p<0.01) (see
Appendix 7).
13
CALENDAR
The results showed that out of the 27.9% of students surveyed that had used the Calendar in iLearn
(n=480) a total of 58.2% of students agreed that the Calendar helps them organise their study (n=134).
There is no system data for Calendar because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance. In response to
“What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). There were
four comments. Three students said that the calendar had helped them while the other said that it does not
work. There were eleven comments by students that related to Calendar in response to “What
improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). All the comments focused on requests for a
personalised incorporating important dates especially assignment deadlines, improved useability and more
use by teaching staff. Statistical results by year of enrolment showed that first year students have a higher
usage of the Calendar than ‘second year and beyond’ (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).
ILEARN FUNCTIONS TO ENGAGE WITH UNIT CONTENT
The iLearn Functions that were categorised as assisting students engage with their unit content were:
Lecture Recordings (Echo360); Links to unit readings; Videos (linked or embedded); Links to external
sites; Lessons; Book Module and Glossary.
LECTURE RECORDINGS (ECHO360)
The results showed that out of the 90% of students surveyed that had used Lecture Recordings (n=479) a
total of 85.6% of students agreed that being able to listen to their lectures online helps them engage with
their unit content (n=431). The iLearn system data showed that 75.0% of units had Lecture Recordings,
which would explain why there was a high percentage of students surveyed who had used this function. In
the open ended responses, there were fourty-four comments by students that related to Echo360 in
response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377).
These comments were all positive focusing on convenience, flexibility and accessibility of lecture recordings
for the purposes of revision, external student access and timetable clashes. There were twenty-one
comments by students that related to Echo360 “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n =
293). These comments included increased use, improved quality of the recordings, better labelling and
filing of the recordings as well as calls for the mandatory use by teaching staff. With regards to technical
improvements these students would like to see: the ‘cut-off’ time extended, RSS enabled notification
system, the ability for lecture recordings formatted on a broader range of devices. Students in Faculty of
Human Sciences found that Lecture Recordings helped them engage with content to a greater extent than
students in other Faculties (p<0.05) (see Appendix 7).
LINKS TO UNIT READINGS
The results showed that out of the 78.1% of students surveyed that had used links to unit readings (n=475) a
total of 80.1% of students agreed that using links to unit readings helped them to engage with the unit
content (n=368). The iLearn system data showed that 92.5% of units had Links to readings and external
sites, which would explain why there were a high percentage of students surveyed who had used this
function. In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?”
There were eighteen comments (n = 377) referring to how students believe they are valuable in supporting
their learning. Conversely, there were fourteen comments by students that related to Links to unit readings
“What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) that referred to links require updating,
inconsistency of how unit readings are linked, and how external students need all the unit readings at the
beginning of the course. Students in Faculty of Business and Economics found Links to Unit readings
helped them engage with to a greater extent than students in other Faculties (p<0.05) (see Appendix 7).
VIDEOS (LINKED OR EMBEDDED)
The results showed that out of the 68.3% of students surveyed that had used videos (n=477) a total of 76.1%
of students agreed that watching videos helped them to engage with the unit content (n=327). There is no
iLearn system data for videos. There were eight comments that related to Videos in response to “What
aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). All of these student
comments listed Videos as valuable function in support their learning. In response to “What improvements
would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) there were three comments that related to Videos. These
comments focused on improvements to embedded videos features. There were statistically significant
differences in the usage of videos with undergraduate students using this iLearn function more than
postgraduate students (p<0.025) (see Appendix 7).
LINKS TO EXTERNAL WEBSITES
The results showed that out of the 67.4% of students surveyed that had used links to external websites
(n=470) a total of 67.5% of students agreed that links to external websites helped them to engage with the
unit content (n=323). The iLearn system data showed that 92.5% of units had Links to readings and
external sites, which would explain why there were a high percentage of students surveyed who had used
14
this function. There were six comments that listed Links to external sites in response to “What aspects of
iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377) but they offered no further
explanation. In response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) there were
four comments that related to Links to external sites. These comments focused on better organisation of the
links in iLearn units.
LESSONS
The results showed that out of the 50.7% of students surveyed that had used the Lessons in iLearn (n=475)
a total of 79.9% of students agreed that working through iLearn Lessons helps them to engage with unit
content (n=244). The iLearn system data showed that 1.0% of units had used Lessons. There were no
references to the iLearn Lesson module in the open-ended student responses and there were no statistical
differences in the responses. Thus the meaning of ‘lessons’ could have been miss interpreted for learning
activities or general content in each topic in the above scaled responses especially considering this iLearn
functions limited use, according to the system’s data.
BOOK MODULE
The results showed that out of the 33.1% of students surveyed that had used the Book module in iLearn
(n=477) a total of 74.2% of students agreed that the information presented in iLearn Books helped them
engage with unit content (n=195). The iLearn system data showed that 3.5% of units had used the Book
Module. There were no comments in the open-ended responses that referred to the iLearn book module.
Statistical analysis showed that first year students found the book module helped them engage with unit
content to a greater extent than students in their ‘second year and beyond’ (p<0.05) (see Appendix 7).
GLOSSARY
The results showed that out of the 15.5% of students surveyed that had used the Glossary in iLearn (n=477)
a total of 68.9% of students agreed that using the Glossary helps them engage with the unit content (n=74).
There is no system data for Glossary because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance. There were no
references to the Glossary in the open-ended student responses. Statistical analysis showed that
postgraduate students found the Glossary helped them engage with the unit content to a greater extent than
undergraduate students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).
ILEARN FUNCTIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH LEARNING ACTIVITIES
The iLearn Functions that were categorised as assisting students engagement with learning activities were:
Discussion Fourms; Quizzes; Dialogue Module; Database; Wiki; Workshop Tool; Blog; Chat and Twitter
Feeds. The wording for Dialogue Module (sending and receiving emails) was “Please indicate your
level of agreement with: “Dialogue messaging assists my interaction within the unit”
although, it was placed in this category in the survey.
DISCUSSION FORUMS
The results showed that out of the 88.2% of students surveyed that had used Discussion Forums (n=475) a
total of 72.5% of students agreed that using online discussions assisted them in engaging with learning
activities (n=418). The iLearn system data showed that 99.9% of units had Discussion Forums, which would
explain why there were a high percentage of students surveyed who had used this function. There were
fifty-one comments by students that related to Discussion Forums in response to “What aspects of iLearn
do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). All but one comment referred to how
Discussion Forums open up communication with peers, tutors and unit convenors and how this is
beneficial in supporting ongoing learning but there were also a few comments that some posts go
unanswered for lengthy time periods. There were twenty comments by students that related to Discussion
Forums in response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). Most of these
comments referred to the way it is used or set-up by convenors, however, there was one comment it would
be beneficial to be able to mark comments of interest.
QUIZZES
The results showed that out of the 77.1% of students surveyed that had used quizzes (n=476) a total of
78.9% of students agreed that using quizzes helped them to engage with learning (n=370). The iLearn
system data showed that quizzes were in 25.5%. In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most
valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377), there were twenty-one comments by students that listed
online quizzes as a valuable iLearn function and one that supports ongoing learning. There were seven
comments by students that related to Quizzes function in response to “What improvements would you like
to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). These student comments mentioned: implementing an alert system, scrolling
issues and how it is possible to cheat when completing online quizzes. There were statistically significant
differences in the usage of quizzes with undergraduate students using this iLearn function more than
postgraduate students. Also, results by year of enrolment showed that first year students have a higher
15
usage of Quizzes than ‘second year and beyond’ (p<0.01). Furthermore, there were statistically significant
differences by attendance mode as internal students used quizzes to a greater extent than external students
(p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).
DIALOGUE MODULE
The results showed that out of the 52% of students surveyed that had used the dialogue module (n=473) a
total of 71.1% of students agreed that the dialogue module assisted their interaction with the unit (n=249).
The iLearn system data showed that 38.2% of units had a Dialogue Module. There were six comments that
listed Dialogue Module in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting
your learning?” (n = 377). These comments focused on how dialogue with teaching staff is invaluable. In
response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) one student requested
notification when there is an announcement or new dialogue message. There were statistically significant
differences by attendance mode as external student use the Dialogue Module to a greater extent than
internal students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).
DATABASE
The results showed that out of the 41.2% of students surveyed that had used the Database in iLearn (n=476)
a total of 84.1% of students agreed that the database tool assisted their engagement with learning activities
(n=195). The iLearn system data showed that 2.3% of units had used Databases. There were no student
comments in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?”
(n = 377) and “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). Statistical results by year of
enrolment showed that first year students have a higher usage of the Databases than ‘second year and
beyond’ (p<0.01). There were also statistically significant differences by attendance mode as internal
students used databases to a greater extent than external students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).
WIKI
The results showed that out of the 18.7% of students surveyed that had used the Wiki in iLearn (n=475) a
total of 59.7% of students agreed that using the wiki helped their engagement with learning (n=92). The
iLearn system data showed that 3.5% of units had used Wikis. There were no student comments relating to
wikis in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n =
377) and “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). Statistical analysis showed that
postgraduate students found the Wiki helped them engage with the unit content to a greater extent than
undergraduate students (p<0.025) (see Appendix 7).
WORKSHOP TOOL
The results showed that out of the 18.6% of students surveyed that had used the Workshop Tool in iLearn
(n=474) a total of 77.2 % of students agreed that using the iLearn workshops assisted their engagement
with learning activities (n=92). The iLearn system data showed that 1.4% of units had used the Workshop
Tool. In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n =
377) one student commented on the complexity of the Workshop Tool. Statistical results by year of
enrolment showed that first year students have a higher usage of the Workshop Tool than ‘second year and
beyond’ (p<0.05) (see Appendix 7).
BLOG
The results showed that out of the 17.4% of students surveyed that had used the Blog in iLearn (n=478) a
total of 65.4% of students agreed that using the Blog helps them engage with learning activities (n=81). The
iLearn system data showed that 5.5% of units had used the Blog. In response to “What improvements would
you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) one student said they particularly enjoy the blog function.
CHAT
The results showed that out of the 15.5% of students surveyed that had used the Chat in iLearn (n=477) a
total of 78.4% of students agreed that using the Chat tool helps them engage with learning activities (n=51).
The iLearn system data showed that 5.0% of units had used Chat. In response to “What improvements
would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) there were four comments that focused on having access to the
Chat function as well as instant chat with tutors during consultation hours. Students in Faculty of Business
and Economics found Chat helped them engage with learning activities to a greater extent than students in
other Faculties (p<0.025) (see Appendix 7).
TWITTER FEEDS
The results showed that out of the 7.8% of students surveyed that had used Twitter Feeds in iLearn (n=475)
a total of 40% of students agreed that using Twitter Feeds helps them engage with learning activities
(n=40). There is no system data for Twitter Feeds because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance. There
were no references to the Twitter Feeds in the open-ended student responses.
16
STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES AND SUPPORT
In order to ascertain levels of student satisfaction with the services and support for the iLearn platform, the
2014 iLearn Student Experience Survey focused on two categories:
 OneHelp support for iLearn;
 Self-help resources including both ease in finding and the overall satisfaction with online
resources.
Student satisfaction with OneHelp for
the resolution of iLearn issues
2014, S2 (n = 320)
2013, S2 (n = 721)
2012
56.6%
62.9%
Agreement
24.1%
25.2%
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
19.3%
Disagreement
11.7%
Figure 9: Student satisfaction with OneHelp for technical issues with iLearn
A total of 56.6% agree that they are satisfied with OneHelp support for technical issues with iLearn. There
were some comments regarding experiencing issues with accessing lecture recordings, links to resources
but there were no direct references made to OneHelp.
Student satisfaction with locating online
resources
2014, S2 (n = 403)
2013, S2 (n = 851)
2012
43.2%
46.3%
Agreement
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
Disagreement
25.8%
25.7%
31.0%
28.0%
Figure 10: Student satisfaction with locating 'self-help' resources
A total of 43.2% agree that they know where to locate online “self-help” resources to assist them in using
iLearn. There were no comments in the open-ended responses regarding online resources. There were
statistical differences in the responses by year of enrolment as first year students are more likely to know
where to locate the self-help resources to a greater extent than students in their second year and beyond
(p<0.05) (see Appendix 6).
17
Student satisfaction with iLearn online
resources
2014, S2 (n = 319)
Agreement
43.6%
Neutral / Mixed Feelings
Disagreement
33.9%
22.5%
Figure 11: Satisfaction with student 'self-help' resources
A total of 43.6% agree that they are satisfied with the assistance provided by online “self-help” resources for
iLearn. As mentioned above, there were no comments in the open-ended responses regarding online
resources. Student satisfaction with resources could be further explored through future focus group with
students in order to gain an understanding of the difficulties and possible solutions.
STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH THE ONLINE UNIT GUIDE (ITEACH)
In order to ascertain student satisfaction with the online Unit Guide, students were asked to indicate how
they access their online unit guides, if the online unit guide met their needs and if it was an improvement
upon the previous version. The questions for this section of the survey are listed below:
 I accessed the Online Unit Guide via an iLearn link in: all of my units; some of my units; none
of my units.
 The Online Unit Guide met my information needs in: all of my units; some of my units; none
of my units.
 If you used UNITS Online Unit Guides prior to Session 2 2014, do you find the current
(Session 2) version of UNITS: an improvement on the previous version; much the same as the
previous version; not as good as the previous version.
These three questions were new to the survey, as we needed to update the survey questions with the recent
update to the systems, specifically, the unification of iTeach and UNITS (online unit guides) now referred to
as iTeach. The number of student responses vary thus the number of responses (n=) received are indicated.
Student Satisfaction with iTeach in Session 2,
2014
Online Unit Guide via an iLearn link.
Online Unit Guide met my information needs.
All of my
units
74.3%
61.8%
Improvem
ent
47.3%
Some of my
units
19%
31.4%
Much the
same
45%
Students that had used Online Unit Guides prior to
S2,2014.
Table 7: Student satisfaction with the Online Unit Guide
None of my
units
6.7%
6.8%
Not as
good
7.6%
N
478
471
N
393
The 2014 survey also included an open-ended section asking students to ‘Please comment on your
experience of using the Online Unit Guide facility’. There were a total of 167 comments that related to the
Online Unit Guide facility and a further ten comments that referred to iLearn in general. A majority of the
comments relating to the online unit guide were positive. These students detailed how the online unit guide
facility was easy to navigate and user-friendly, the importance of having this information before enrolling in
a unit and how useful/helpful it is to have this information in general. Some students referred to problems
with how the facility is used, for example, the delay in receiving the unit guides; the system not being used;
the information provided in the guides being inadequate, specifically, the publication of incorrect dates for
assessments and the confusion cause when there are two unit guides with inconsistent information in each.
A few students also commented on the usefulness of new unit guide link but noted that the link is not
18
always accessible. With regards to suggested improvements one student requested that unit guides are
available earlier and another suggested removing the case sensitivity in the online unit guide search facility
as well as the link to the unit guide being clearly signposted.
According to statistical analysis of the survey results there were some significant variations between in
satisfaction between Faculties, undergraduate/postgraduate, Internal and External and year of enrolment.
Statistical analysis revealed that students in the Faculty of Human Sciences were less likely to agree with
the statement the ‘online unit guide met my information needs’ in ‘all of their units’ than students in other
Faculties (p<0.05). Postgraduate students and external students were less likely to agree with the statement
the ‘online unit guide met my information needs’ than undergraduate students and external students
respectively (p<0.01). Furthermore, postgraduate students and external students were less likely to access
the online unit guide via an iLearn link in ‘all of their units’ than undergraduate students and internal
students (p<0.025) and (p<0.01) respectively. Additionally, students in their ‘second year and beyond’ are
less likely to access the online unit guide via an iLearn link in ‘all of their units’ and ‘some of their units’
than first year students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 8).
19
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: ILEARN STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY QUESTIONS
The survey consisted of a combination of multiple-choice, scaled and open-ended questions that focused
on:
 Demographics relating to the learning and teaching context.
 Technologies used to access iLearn.
 Experiences of learning and teaching using the iLearn functions, which focused on:
1. Organising teaching; or
2. Engaging with learning activities.
 Most valuable features and suggested improvements.
 Overall satisfaction with iLearn, iTeach and associated support services.
In 2014, additional questions were included in the iLearn Student Experience Survey regarding the Online
Unit Guide Facility.
It is important to note that the iLearn Student Experience Survey used a five point Likert scale (strongly
agree, agree, neutral/mixed feelings, disagree and strongly disagree), which has been reduced to Agreement
(strongly agree + agree), Neutral/mixed feelings and Disagreement (strongly disagree + disagree) in all the
tables and graphs in this report. This same approach is used for the satisfaction questions, again the five
point Likert scale (very satisfied, satisfied, neutral/mixed feelings, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied) has
been reduced to Satisfied (very satisfied + satisfied), Neutral/mixed feelings and Dissatisfied (very
dissatisfied + dissatisfied) this decision was made for readability purposes. In each of the tables and graphs
the number of student responses vary thus the number of responses (n=) received are indicated in each, in
order to provide further clarity to the findings. Where possible, the iLearn Student Experience Survey
results are presented with the corresponding results from the 2012 and 2013 surveys. This was not always
possible as each year the survey questions have slightly changed to correspond with the modifications
within the system and the transition from the iLearn implementation to the operational phase.
20
21
22
23
24
APPENDIX 2: SURVEY ADVERTISEMENTS
Various communication strategies were used to raise awareness of the iLearn surveys; for example, survey
advertisements on screens across campus including the central courtyard, Campus Hub, Macquarie
University Sport & Aquatic Centre, E4B, W6B and the Library. A link to the iLearn improvements
document and the advertisements with further information regarding the surveys were published in LTC
Faculty Reports, the LTC Blog Teche and the iLearn homepage (once the user had logged into the system).
Individual emails were sent to all Departmental Administrators asking that they notify teaching staff about
the surveys and for them to announce it in their tutorials and lectures. Again, this message included the
iLearn improvements document and advertisements. There were also incentives for students to complete
the survey, ten $30 iTune vouchers, which were drawn after the survey had closed. These ten students were
the lucky winners: A. di-Giacomo, A. Fergusson, A. Nasiry, C. Sayers, E. Clarkson, G. Healey, J. Speer, M.
Curby, N. Wilson and S. Henderson.
ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE ILEARN HOMEPAGE
ADVERTISEMENT FOR CAMPUS SCREENS, POSTERS AND ATTACHMENTS TO EMAIL
NOTIFICATIONS
25
APPENDIX 3: IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ILEARN PLATFORM
Since the iLearn implementation in 2012 the iLearn team has made continual improvements to the system.
The improvements made in 2014 include:
 the new iLearn theme;
 the introduction of a mobile friendly iLearn site;
 the iTeach-UNITS integration;
 the launch of iShare;
 the introduction of iLearn status page (http://status.ilearn.mq.edu.au/);
 the inclusion of a new question type in the IPA transcription;
 updates to Unit readings block and Category block;
 updates to Echo360 to enhance stability and maintain security;
 the streaming and screen capture capabilities for Echo360 were extended to an additional 20
venues across campus, and the new iTeach integration improved convenor access methods,
resulting in fewer requests to grant academics access to their units within Echo360.
APPENDIX 4: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS DEMOGRAPHICS
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVEL
Significant at α = 0.05 (p = 0.03)
Crosstab
Faculty
FOA
Program level
Undergraduate
Count
Expected Count
% within Program level
Postgraduate
Count
Expected Count
% within Program level
Total
Count
Expected Count
% within Program level
FOBE
FOHS
FOS
Total
117
79
117
70
383
114.6
81.7
125.0
61.7
383.0
30.5%
20.6%
30.5%
18.3%
100.0%
26
23
39
7
95
28.4
20.3
31.0
15.3
95.0
27.4%
24.2%
41.1%
7.4%
100.0%
143
102
156
77
478
143.0
102.0
156.0
77.0
478.0
29.9%
21.3%
32.6%
16.1%
100.0%
26
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODE
Significant at α = 0.01 (p = 0.006)
Crosstab
Faculty
FOA
Attendance mode
Internal
Count
units only
Expected Count
% within Attendance
mode
External
Count
units only
Expected Count
% within Attendance
mode
Both
Count
internal and Expected Count
external
% within Attendance
units
mode
Total
Count
Expected Count
% within Attendance
mode
FOBE
FOHS
FOS
Total
91
73
108
58
330
102.5
61.8
111.9
53.8
330.0
27.6%
22.1%
32.7%
17.6%
100.0%
32
4
32
8
76
23.6
14.2
25.8
12.4
76.0
42.1%
5.3%
42.1%
10.5%
100.0%
18
8
14
8
48
14.9
9.0
16.3
7.8
48.0
37.5%
16.7%
29.2%
16.7%
100.0%
141
85
154
74
454
141.0
85.0
154.0
74.0
454.0
31.1%
18.7%
33.9%
16.3%
100.0%
FOS
Total
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF STUDY
Significant at α = 0.01 (p = 0.004)
Crosstab
Faculty
FOA
Year of study RC
First year
Count
Expected Count
% within Year of study
RC
Second or
Count
subsequent year Expected Count
% within Year of study
RC
Total
Count
Expected Count
% within Year of study
RC
FOBE
FOHS
59
50
48
21
178
53.1
37.9
58.3
28.6
178.0
33.1%
28.1%
27.0%
11.8%
100.0%
84
52
109
56
301
89.9
64.1
98.7
48.4
301.0
27.9%
17.3%
36.2%
18.6%
100.0%
143
102
157
77
479
143.0
102.0
157.0
77.0
479.0
29.9%
21.3%
32.8%
16.1%
100.0%
27
APPENDIX 5: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGIES STUDENTS USED TO ACCESS ILEARN
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY FACULTY
Notes: In all tables, N = Maximum N; actual total varies due to missing values or NA responses. There
were only 2 responses from OUA students so these have not been reported separately.
Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*.
Ownership/access to devices…
FoA
N = 143
FBE
N = 102
FoHS
N = 157
FoSE
N = 77
ALL
N = 481
Smartphone
col %
col %
col %
col %
col %
Own
92
88
92
84
90
Regular, reliable access
2
8
2
6
4
Some/unreliable access
1
2
0
3
1
Little or no access
4
2
6
6
5
50
57
50
35
50
Regular, reliable access
5
10
7
12
8
Some/unreliable access
8
7
10
8
8
36
26
33
45
34
91
86
88
84
88
Regular, reliable access
2
6
8
4
5
Some/unreliable access
3
4
2
4
3
Little or no access
4
4
3
8
4
Own
41
36
22
44
34
Regular, reliable access
24
22
28
15
23
Some/unreliable access
11
14
20
13
15
Little or no access
24
27
29
28
27
23
14
11
15
16
Regular, reliable access
2
4
4
1
3
Some/unreliable access
6
7
3
8
6
68
75
82
76
75
Tablet
Own
Little or no access
Laptop computer
Own
Desktop computer **
Portable e-book reader
Own
Little or no access
28
FoA
N = 143
FBE
N = 102
FoHS
N = 157
FoSE
N = 77
ALL
N = 481
col %
col %
col %
col %
col %
90
92
92
92
91
…irregular and/or unreliable
8
7
7
8
8
…minimal
1
1
1
0
1
My off-campus access to
broadband internet is…
…regular and reliable
FoA
N = 143
FBE
N = 102
FoHS
N = 157
FoSE
N = 77
ALL
N = 481
Uni-provided computer at MQ
***
col %
col %
col %
col %
col %
Never or rarely
59
32
54
38
48
Moderate frequency
30
34
34
30
32
High frequency
11
35
12
32
20
Frequency of using iLearn with…
Desktop or laptop computer at other location
Never or rarely
6
7
3
4
5
Moderate frequency
7
5
8
4
5
91
91
90
90
91
High frequency
My own laptop at MQ using OneNet **
Never or rarely
30
12
25
29
24
Moderate frequency
26
22
23
25
24
High frequency
44
67
51
47
52
Smart phone at MQ using OneNet ***
Never or rarely
30
12
28
23
24
Moderate frequency
23
20
23
31
23
High frequency
48
68
49
45
52
Smart phone using another network provider ***
Never or rarely
38
27
39
29
35
Moderate frequency
20
14
18
33
20
High frequency
42
59
44
38
45
Never or rarely
66
50
61
66
61
Moderate frequency
10
8
18
18
14
High frequency
24
43
21
16
26
Tablet at MQ using OneNet ***
Tablet using another network provider *
Never or rarely
73
60
67
78
69
Moderate frequency
14
11
12
12
12
High frequency
14
29
21
10
19
95
88
95
92
93
Moderate frequency
1
3
1
5
2
High frequency
5
9
4
3
5
Other device/network combination – specify
Never or rarely
29
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVEL
Comparison between views of undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) students. One student did not provide their program level.
Note: Unless otherwise stated in tables, N = Maximum N; actual total varies due to missing values or NA responses. In the following table, percentages may not sum to 100 due to
rounding error. Differences by Program Level significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01
Ownership/access to
devices…
Program Level
Program Level
UG
N = 384
PG
N = 96
ALL
N = 481
UG
N = 384
PG
N = 96
ALL
N = 481
Smartphone
col %
col %
col %
Tablet
col %
col %
col %
Own
90
90
90
Own
47
60
50
Regular, reliable access
4
3
4
Regular, reliable access
9
4
8
Some/unreliable access
2
0
1
Some/unreliable access
9
6
8
Little or no access
4
6
5
Little or no access
36
30
34
Own
35
33
34
Laptop computer
Own
Desktop computer
88
86
88
Regular, reliable access
4
7
5
Regular, reliable access
23
24
23
Some/unreliable access
3
3
3
Some/unreliable access
16
14
15
Little or no access
4
3
4
Little or no access
27
30
27
Portable e-book reader **
Own
2.2 My off-campus access to broadband internet is…
15
19
16
Regular, reliable access
2
7
3
Some/unreliable access
7
1
6
76
73
75
Little or no access
…regular and reliable
92
88
91
…irregular and/or unreliable
7
12
8
…minimal
1
0
1
30
Frequency of using iLearn
with…
Program Level
Program Level
UG
N = 384
PG
N = 96
ALL
N = 481
Uni-provided computer at
MQ
col %
col %
col %
Desktop or laptop computer
at other location/s
Never or rarely
47
52
48
Never or rarely
5
4
5
Moderate frequency
33
28
32
Moderate frequency
4
7
5
High frequency
20
20
20
High frequency
91
88
91
My own laptop at MQ using OneNet ***
UG
N = 384
PG
N = 96
ALL
N = 481
col %
col %
col %
Smartphone at MQ using OneNet ***
Never or rarely
21
38
24
Never or rarely
20
42
24
Moderate frequency
24
24
24
Moderate frequency
25
17
23
High frequency
55
37
52
High frequency
55
41
52
Smartphone using another network provider
Tablet at MQ using OneNet
Never or rarely
34
39
35
Never or rarely
60
64
61
Moderate frequency
20
18
20
Moderate frequency
13
16
14
High frequency
46
43
45
High frequency
27
20
26
93
91
93
Tablet using another network provider **
Other device/network combination
Never or rarely
72
57
69
Never or rarely
A few times a week
11
18
12
A few times a week
2
2
2
At least once a day
17
25
19
At least once a day
5
7
5
31
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODE
Comparison between views by attendance mode (internal only, external only, both internal and external). 25 students did
not provide this information.
Note: Unless otherwise stated in tables, N = Maximum N; actual total varies due to missing values or NA responses. In the
following table, percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding error.
Differences by Year of Enrolment significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01
Ownership/access to
devices…
Attendance mode (units)
Internal
N = 332
External
N = 76
Both
N = 48
ALL
N = 481
Smartphone
col %
col %
col %
col %
Own
91
86
94
90
Regular, reliable access
3
1
4
4
Some/unreliable access
1
4
0
1
Little or no access
5
8
2
5
Own
44
65
50
50
Regular, reliable access
10
3
4
8
Some/unreliable access
10
4
4
8
Little or no access
36
28
42
34
89
84
89
88
Regular, reliable access
4
8
4
5
Some/unreliable access
3
5
0
3
Little or no access
5
3
6
4
Own
32
42
42
34
Regular, reliable access
24
20
23
23
Some/unreliable access
16
16
10
15
Little or no access
28
20
25
27
14
23
22
16
Regular, reliable access
2
4
7
3
Some/unreliable access
6
3
4
6
78
70
67
75
Tablet **
Laptop computer
Own
Desktop computer
Portable e-book reader
Own
Little or no access
Internal
N = 332
External
N = 76
Both
N = 48
ALL
N = 481
col %
col %
col %
col %
92
7
89
11
92
6
91
8
1
0
2
1
Uni-provided computer at MQ ***
Never or rarely
44
77
54
48
Moderate frequency
18
33
32
6
13
20
My off-campus access to
broadband internet is…
…regular and reliable
…irregular and/or unreliable
…minimal
Frequency of using iLearn with…
35
High frequency
22
Desktop or laptop computer at other location
32
Never or rarely
Moderate frequency
High frequency
4
3
8
5
4
92
9
88
2
90
5
91
My own laptop at MQ using OneNet ***
Never or rarely
Moderate frequency
16
23
66
30
25
23
24
24
High frequency
61
4
52
52
Smart phone at MQ using OneNet ***
Never or rarely
Moderate frequency
15
25
73
20
25
25
24
23
High frequency
60
7
50
52
Smart phone using another network provider *
Never or rarely
32
44
44
35
Moderate frequency
20
23
25
20
High frequency
49
33
31
45
Tablet at MQ using OneNet ***
Never or rarely
59
78
57
61
Moderate frequency
13
16
13
14
5
30
26
High frequency
28
Tablet using another network provider ***
Never or rarely
72
52
85
69
Moderate frequency
11
19
8
12
High frequency
17
30
Other device/network combination – specify
6
19
Never or rarely
Moderate frequency
High frequency
95
89
93
93
2
4
3
8
4
2
2
5
33
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF STUDY
Comparison between views of first year and subsequent year students.
Note: Unless otherwise stated in tables, N = Maximum N; actual total varies due to missing values or NA responses. In the following table, percentages may not sum to 100 due to
rounding error.
Differences by Year of Enrolment significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01
Ownership/access to
devices…
Year of enrolment
Year of enrolment
Year 1
N = 179
Year 2+
N = 302
ALL
N = 481
Year 1
N = 179
Year 2+
N = 302
ALL
N = 481
Smartphone
col %
col %
col %
Tablet
col %
col %
col %
Own
90
90
90
Own
53
47
50
Regular, reliable access
5
3
4
Regular, reliable access
8
8
8
Some/unreliable access
1
1
1
Some/unreliable access
9
8
8
Little or no access
3
6
5
Little or no access
30
37
34
Own
34
34
34
Laptop computer
Own
Desktop computer
86
89
88
Regular, reliable access
7
4
5
Regular, reliable access
22
24
23
Some/unreliable access
3
3
3
Some/unreliable access
14
16
15
Little or no access
4
4
4
Little or no access
31
25
27
Portable e-book reader **
Own
3.2 My off-campus access to broadband internet is…
14
16
16
Regular, reliable access
4
2
3
Some/unreliable access
8
4
6
73
77
75
Little or no access
Frequency of using iLearn
with…
…regular and reliable
92
91
91
…irregular and/or unreliable
7
8
8
…minimal
1
1
1
Year of enrolment
Year of enrolment
Year 1
N = 179
Year 2+
N = 302
ALL
N = 481
Year 1
N = 179
Year 2+
N = 302
ALL
N = 481
Uni-provided computer at
MQ
col %
col %
col %
Desktop or laptop computer
at other location/s
col %
col %
col %
Never or rarely
53
46
48
Never or rarely
7
3
5
Moderate frequency
27
35
32
Moderate frequency
4
5
5
34
High frequency
21
19
20
My own laptop at MQ using OneNet
High frequency
89
92
91
Smartphone at MQ using OneNet
Never or rarely
23
25
24
Never or rarely
23
25
24
Moderate frequency
22
25
24
Moderate frequency
19
26
23
High frequency
54
50
52
High frequency
58
49
52
60
61
61
9
16
14
31
22
26
93
93
93
Smartphone using another network provider
Tablet at MQ using OneNet *
Never or rarely
35
35
35
Never or rarely
Moderate frequency
18
21
20
Moderate frequency
High frequency
47
45
45
High frequency
Tablet using another network provider
Other device/network combination
Never or rarely
71
68
69
Never or rarely
A few times a week
10
13
12
A few times a week
2
2
2
At least once a day
20
18
19
At least once a day
6
5
5
35
APPENDIX 6: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH ILEARN
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY FACULTY
Note: The items in the following table included an abstention response; hence the N is specified for each item.
Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*
Overall experience with iLearn
FoA
N = 143
FBE
N = 102
I am satisfied with…
N
Mean
SDev
the way iLearn enables access to unit
information and content
138
3.9
1.3
iLearn as a support for organising my
study
139
3.7
the way iLearn supports interaction and
communication with my fellowstudents
139
the way iLearn supports interaction and
communication with teaching staff **
N
FoHS
N = 157
FoSE
N = 77
ALL
N = 481
Mean
SDev
N
Mean
SDev
N
Mean
SDev
N
Mean
SDev
98
4.1
1.2
156
4.2
1.2
77
4.1
1.1
471
4.1
1.2
1.4
100
4.0
1.3
153
4.1
1.1
77
4.0
1.0
471
3.9
1.2
3.6
1.2
96
3.6
1.3
154
3.8
1.2
75
3.9
1.0
466
3.7
1.2
138
3.6
1.3
97
3.7
1.2
151
4.0
1.2
75
3.8
1.1
463
3.8
1.2
the way iLearn supports my engagement with learning activities *
139
3.7
1.3
98
3.8
1.3
152
4.1
1.1
76
3.8
1.1
467
3.9
1.2
OneHelp for resolution of technical
issues with iLearn
96
3.5
1.4
67
3.6
1.3
108
3.7
1.3
48
3.6
1.2
320
3.6
1.3
I know where to locate online ‘selfhelp’ resources to assist using iLearn
121
3.1
1.4
75
3.2
1.6
140
3.2
1.2
66
3.3
1.2
403
3.2
1.3
I am satisfied with the assistance
provided by online ‘self-help’ resources
for iLearn
93
3.2
1.3
66
3.4
1.3
109
3.4
1.2
50
3.3
1.1
319
3.3
1.2
The way iLearn is used enhances
my learning experience
139
3.7
1.3
93
3.9
1.2
153
4.0
1.1
75
3.8
1.1
462
3.9
1.2
I would recommend MQ’s use of
iLearn as good practice
137
3.8
1.3
92
3.9
1.3
153
4.0
1.2
75
4.0
1.1
459
4.0
1.2
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVEL
Note: The items in the following table included an abstention response; hence the N is specified for each item.
Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*
36
Overall experience with iLearn
UG
N = 384
PG
N = 96
ALL
N = 481
I am satisfied with…
N
Mean
SDev
N
Mean
SDev
N
Mean
SDev
the way iLearn enables access to unit
information and content
376
4.1
1.2
94
4.0
1.2
471
4.1
1.2
iLearn as a support for organising my
study
375
4.0
1.2
95
3.8
1.2
471
3.9
1.2
the way iLearn supports interaction
and communication with my fellowstudents
370
3.8
1.2
95
3.6
1.2
466
3.7
1.2
the way iLearn supports interaction
and communication with teaching staff
367
3.8
1.2
95
3.8
1.3
463
3.8
1.2
the way iLearn supports my
engagement with learning activities
371
3.9
1.2
95
3.8
1.2
467
3.9
1.2
OneHelp for resolution of technical
issues with iLearn
250
3.6
1.3
70
3.4
1.3
320
3.6
1.3
I know where to locate online ‘selfhelp’ resources to assist using iLearn
315
3.2
1.3
87
3.1
1.3
403
3.2
1.3
I am satisfied with the assistance
provided by online ‘self-help’ resources
for iLearn
248
3.4
1.2
71
3.2
1.3
319
3.3
1.2
The way iLearn is used enhances
my learning experience
367
3.9
1.2
94
3.7
1.2
462
3.9
1.2
I would recommend MQ’s use of
iLearn as good practice *
366
4.0
1.2
92
3.7
1.3
459
4.0
1.2
37
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODE
Note: The items in the following table included an abstention response; hence the N is specified for each item.
Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*
Overall experience with iLearn
Internal
N = 332
External
N = 76
Both
N = 48
ALL
N = 481
I am satisfied with…
N
Mea
n
SDev
N
Mean
SDev
N
Mea
n
SDev
N
Mea
n
SDev
the way iLearn enables access to unit
information and content
324
4.1
1.2
75
4.0
1.2
47
4.2
1.0
471
4.1
1.2
iLearn as a support for organising my study
325
4.0
1.2
75
3.9
1.2
46
3.7
1.2
471
3.9
1.2
the way iLearn supports interaction and
communication with my fellow-students
319
3.8
1.2
75
3.7
1.2
47
3.6
1.2
466
3.7
1.2
the way iLearn supports interaction and
communication with teaching staff
318
3.8
1.2
74
3.8
1.3
46
3.6
1.3
463
3.8
1.2
the way iLearn supports my engagement with
learning activities
323
3.9
1.1
74
3.8
1.2
45
3.6
1.2
467
3.9
1.2
OneHelp for resolution of technical issues with
iLearn
210
3.6
1.3
57
3.3
1.2
32
3.8
1.1
320
3.6
1.3
I know where to locate online ‘self-help’
resources to assist using iLearn
272
3.2
1.3
72
3.0
1.3
39
3.3
1.3
403
3.2
1.3
I am satisfied with the assistance provided
by online ‘self-help’ resources for iLearn
208
3.4
1.2
59
3.0
1.2
32
3.2
1.0
319
3.3
1.2
The way iLearn is used enhances my
learning experience
318
3.9
1.2
74
3.73
1.2
46
3.8
1.1
462
3.9
1.2
I would recommend MQ’s use of iLearn
as good practice
317
4.0
1.2
72
3.8
1.2
46
4.0
1.2
459
4.0
1.2
38
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF STUDY
Note: The items in the following table included an abstention response; hence the N is specified for each item.
Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*
Overall experience with iLearn
Year 1
N = 179
Year 2+
N = 302
ALL
N = 481
I am satisfied with…
N
Mean
SDev
N
Mean
SDev
N
Mean
SDev
the way iLearn enables access to unit
information and content **
174
4.2
1.2
297
4.0
1.2
471
4.1
1.2
iLearn as a support for organising my
study
174
4.0
1.2
297
3.9
1.2
471
3.9
1.2
the way iLearn supports interaction
and communication with my fellowstudents
174
3.8
1.3
292
3.7
1.2
466
3.7
1.2
the way iLearn supports interaction
and communication with teaching staff
170
3.8
1.3
293
3.7
1.2
463
3.8
1.2
the way iLearn supports my
engagement with learning activities *
172
4.0
1.2
295
3.8
1.2
467
3.9
1.2
OneHelp for resolution of technical
issues with iLearn
116
3.6
1.3
204
3.6
1.3
320
3.6
1.3
I know where to locate online ‘selfhelp’ resources to assist using iLearn *
148
3.4
1.4
255
3.1
1.3
403
3.2
1.3
I am satisfied with the assistance
provided by online ‘self-help’ resources
for iLearn
118
3.5
1.3
201
3.2
1.2
319
3.3
1.2
The way iLearn is used enhances
my learning experience **
173
4.0
1.2
289
3.8
1.2
462
3.9
1.2
I would recommend MQ’s use of
iLearn as good practice ***
171
4.2
1.2
288
3.8
1.2
459
4.0
1.2
39
APPENDIX 7: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF STUDENT EXPERIENCE WITH ILEARN
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY FACULTY
Note: %Used in the following tables refers to the percentage of survey respondents who indicated that they had used the named tool or facility in their units during Session 2.
Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*.
Helped me organise my
study
iLearn tool
FoA
N = 143
FBE
N = 102
FoHS
N = 157
FoSE
N = 77
ALL
N = 481
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
Announcements/News items
89
4.0
1.1
91
4.3
1.0
92
4.2
1.0
94
4.1
1.1
91
4.2
1.0
Calendar
26
3.6
1.2
40
4.0
1.1
24
3.5
1.2
25
3.7
0.9
28
3.7
1.1
Online Assignment Submission
96
4.0
1.2
94
4.2
1.0
97
4.1
1.1
95
4.0
1.2
96
4.1
1.1
Grades
89
4.2
1.1
96
4.4
0.9
89
4.3
1.0
96
4.0
1.3
92
4.2
1.1
Helped me prepare
assignments
iLearn tool
Turnitin *
FoA
N = 143
FoHS
N = 157
FoSE
N = 77
ALL
N = 481
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
86
3.6
1.3
90
4.0
1.2
92
3.6
1.3
83
3.6
1.2
88
3.7
1.3
Helped me engage with
content
iLearn tool
FBE
N = 102
FoA
N = 143
FBE
N = 102
FoHS
N = 157
FoSE
N = 77
ALL
N = 481
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
Links to external websites
70
3.9
1.1
60
4.0
1.1
71
4.0
0.9
67
3.7
1.1
67
3.9
1.0
Links to Unit readings *
85
4.3
1.1
65
4.0
1.1
88
4.4
0.9
64
4.3
0.9
78
4.3
1.0
Lecture recordings *
94
4.4
1.1
87
4.3
1.1
88
4.6
0.8
90
4.4
1.0
90
4.4
1.0
Videos
62
4.2
1.0
62
4.1
1.0
81
4.2
0.9
66
4.1
1.1
68
4.2
1.0
Lessons
44
4.3
0.9
62
4.3
1.0
46
4.2
1.1
60
4.1
0.9
51
4.2
1.0
Book module
32
4.2
1.0
41
4.2
1.2
28
4.1
0.9
35
3.8
1.2
33
4.1
1.1
Glossary
15
4.2
0.9
26
4.3
0.9
11
3.8
1.0
13
3.9
1.2
16
4.1
1.0
Assisted interaction in the
unit
iLearn tool
FoA
N = 143
%Use
d
Mean
FBE
N = 102
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
FoHS
N = 157
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
FoSE
N = 77
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
ALL
N = 481
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
40
Dialogue
54
Helped me engage with
learning/activities
iLearn tool
4.1
1.0
45
FoA
N = 143
4.0
1.0
62
FBE
N = 102
4.2
0.9
40
FoHS
N = 157
3.9
1.0
52
FoSE
N = 77
4.1
1.0
ALL
N = 481
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
Discussion Forums
85
4.0
1.2
83
4.1
1.0
94
4.1
1.0
90
3.9
1.0
88
4.0
1.1
Blog
13
3.8
1.3
18
4.4
1.0
22
3.9
1.0
16
3.4
0.9
17
3.9
1.1
Chat **
8
4.1
1.0
18
4.8
0.5
8
3.9
1.1
8
3.3
1.6
10
4.2
1.1
Quizzes
69
4.0
1.2
89
4.2
1.1
73
4.2
0.9
86
4.1
1.1
77
4.1
1.1
Wiki
18
3.6
1.2
31
4.0
0.9
11
3.9
0.9
20
3.2
1.2
19
3.8
1.1
Database
36
4.4
0.9
52
4.2
1.1
44
4.3
0.8
32
4.2
0.9
41
4.3
0.9
Workshop
14
4.0
1.1
34
4.2
1.1
14
4.2
0.8
18
4.1
1.0
19
4.2
1.0
8
2.8
1.5
10
3.7
1.3
7
3.0
1.3
7
3.2
1.3
8
2.2
1.3
Twitter feeds
41
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVEL
Differences in means by Program Level significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01
Differences in tool usage rate by Program Level significant at †α = 0.05, †† α = 0.025, ††† α = 0.01
UG
N = 384
Helped me organise my study
iLearn tool
PG
N = 96
ALL
N = 481
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
Announcements/News items
92
4.2
1.0
86
4.1
1.1
91
4.2
1.0
Calendar
28
3.7
1.1
28
3.7
1.2
28
3.7
1.1
Online Assignment Submission***
95
4.2
1.0
98
3.8
1.3
96
4.1
1.1
Grades **
92
4.3
1.0
88
4.0
1.1
92
4.2
1.1
90
3.7
1.2
81
3.4
1.5
88
3.7
1.3
Links to external websites
70
3.9
1.0
57
4.1
1.1
67
3.9
1.0
Links to Unit readings
78
4.3
1.0
77
4.3
1.0
78
4.3
1.0
Lecture recordings †††
95
4.5
1.0
70
4.3
1.0
90
4.4
1.0
Videos ††
71
4.2
1.0
56
4.2
1.0
68
4.2
1.0
Lessons
52
4.2
1.0
46
4.4
1.0
51
4.2
1.0
Book module
32
4.1
1.1
37
4.2
1.1
33
4.1
1.1
Glossary ***
16
4.0
1.0
13
4.8
0.6
16
4.1
1.0
50
4.1
1.0
60
4.1
1.0
52
4.1
1.0
Helped me prepare assignments
Turnitin * †††
Helped me engage with content
Assisted interaction in the unit
Dialogue
Helped me engage with learning/activities
Discussion Forums
89
4.0
1.1
85
4.0
1.0
88
4.0
1.1
Blog
18
3.9
1.0
17
3.9
1.3
17
3.9
1.1
Chat
10
4.3
1.0
11
3.8
1.4
10
4.2
1.1
Quizzes †††
86
4.2
1.0
43
4.1
1.1
77
4.1
1.1
Wiki **
20
3.6
1.1
16
4.3
0.7
19
3.8
1.1
Database
43
4.2
0.9
32
4.4
0.7
41
4.3
0.9
Workshop
17
4.1
1.0
25
4.4
1.0
19
4.2
1.0
7
3.3
1.3
8
2.9
1.5
8
2.2
1.3
Twitter feeds
42
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODE
Differences by Attendance Mode significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01
Differences in tool usage by Attendance Mode significant at †α = 0.05, †† α = 0.025, ††† α = 0.01
Internal
N = 332
Helped me organise my study
iLearn tool
External
N = 76
Both
N = 48
ALL
N = 481
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
Announcements/News items
91
4.2
1.0
90
4.0
1.2
92
4.1
1.1
91
4.2
1.0
Calendar
28
3.8
1.1
26
3.2
1.3
27
3.4
1.1
28
3.7
1.1
Online Assignment Submission **
96
4.2
1.0
95
3.8
1.3
96
3.9
1.2
96
4.1
1.1
Grades
92
4.2
1.1
90
4.1
1.2
90
4.4
1.1
92
4.2
1.1
88
3.8
1.3
85
3.3
1.3
92
3.5
1.4
88
3.7
1.3
Links to external websites
65
3.9
1.0
71
4.1
1.0
74
3.9
1.2
67
3.9
1.0
Links to Unit readings
77
4.2
1.0
86
4.3
1.0
75
4.5
0.8
78
4.3
1.0
Lecture recordings
90
4.4
1.0
92
4.5
1.0
96
4.5
0.9
90
4.4
1.0
Videos
67
4.1
1.0
73
4.2
1.0
73
4.5
0.7
68
4.2
1.0
Lessons
50
4.2
1.0
44
4.2
1.1
56
4.4
0.7
51
4.2
1.0
Book module
34
4.0
1.1
21
4.1
1.2
33
4.2
1.2
33
4.1
1.1
Glossary
14
4.1
1.0
13
4.3
0.9
21
3.6
0.9
16
4.1
1.0
47
4.0
1.0
75
4.2
1.0
45
4.0
1.1
52
4.1
1.0
Helped me prepare assignments
Turnitin**
Helped me engage with content
Assisted interaction in the unit
Dialogue †††
Helped me engage with
learning/activities
iLearn tool
Internal
N = 332
External
N = 76
Both
N = 48
ALL
N = 481
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
%Use
d
Mean
SDev
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
Discussion Forums
88
4.0
1.1
96
4.1
1.1
87
4.3
0.9
88
4.0
1.1
Blog
14
4.0
1.0
24
4.1
1.1
23
3.3
1.3
17
3.9
1.1
Chat
9
4.3
1.1
8
3.7
1.5
13
4.0
0.6
10
4.2
1.1
Quizzes †††
82
4.1
1.0
55
4.0
1.1
81
4.1
1.3
77
4.1
1.1
Wiki
19
3.7
1.0
11
3.4
1.2
21
3.7
1.3
19
3.8
1.1
Database †††
44
4.2
0.9
27
4.3
0.7
30
4.7
0.5
41
4.3
0.9
Workshop
17
4.1
1.0
15
4.0
1.2
15
4.3
0.8
19
4.2
1.0
7
2.9
1.3
8
3.0
1.3
6
4.5
1.0
8
2.2
1.3
Twitter feeds
43
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF ENROLMENT
Differences in means by Year of Enrolment significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01
Differences in tool usage by Year of Enrolment significant at †α = 0.05, †† α = 0.025, ††† α = 0.01
Year 1
N = 179
Helped me organise my study
iLearn tool
Year 2+
N = 302
ALL
N = 481
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
%Use
d
Mea
n
SDev
Announcements/News items
92
4.1
1.0
90
4.2
1.0
91
4.2
1.0
Calendar †††
33
3.7
1.1
25
3.7
1.2
28
3.7
1.1
Online Assignment Submission
96
4.1
1.1
95
4.1
1.1
96
4.1
1.1
Grades
94
4.3
1.0
90
4.2
1.1
92
4.2
1.1
85
3.8
1.3
91
3.6
1.3
88
3.7
1.3
Links to external websites
64
4.1
1.0
69
3.9
1.1
67
3.9
1.0
Links to Unit readings
77
4.4
1.0
79
4.2
1.0
78
4.3
1.0
Lecture recordings
90
4.5
1.0
90
4.4
1.0
90
4.4
1.0
Videos
66
4.3
0.9
70
4.1
1.0
68
4.2
1.0
Lessons
51
4.4
0.9
50
4.1
1.1
51
4.2
1.0
Book module *
30
4.3
0.8
35
4.0
1.2
33
4.1
1.1
Glossary
11
4.2
1.0
18
4.1
1.0
16
4.1
1.0
52
4.1
1.0
52
4.1
1.0
52
4.1
1.0
Helped me prepare assignments
Turnitin †††
Helped me engage with content
Assisted interaction in the unit
Dialogue
Helped me engage with learning/activities
Discussion Forums
90
4.2
1.0
87
4.0
1.1
88
4.0
1.1
Blog
19
3.9
1.1
17
4.0
1.1
17
3.9
1.1
Chat
11
4.0
1.3
9
4.3
1.0
10
4.2
1.1
Quizzes †
82
4.2
1.1
74
4.1
1.0
77
4.1
1.1
Wiki
19
3.9
0.9
19
3.7
1.2
19
3.8
1.1
Database †††
45
4.2
1.0
39
4.3
0.9
41
4.3
0.9
Workshop †
24
4.3
0.8
15
4.0
1.1
19
4.2
1.0
Twitter feeds
8
3.5
1.4
7
3.0
1.3
8
2.2
1.3
44
APPENDIX 8: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF STUDENT EXPERIENCE WITH ONLINE UNIT GUIDE
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY FACULTY
Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*.
Online Unit Guides
FoA
N = 143
FBE
N = 102
FoHS
N = 157
FoSE
N = 77
ALL
N = 481
I accessed the online unit guide
via an iLearn link in:
col %
col %
col %
col %
col %
All of my units
75
85
68
71
74
Some of my units
18
12
23
22
19
None of my units
7
3
9
7
7
The online unit guide met my information needs in: *
All of my units
61
74
53
65
62
Some of my units
32
23
37
31
31
None of my units
7
3
10
4
7
If you used UNITS Online Unit
Guides prior to Session 2 2014,
do you find the current
(Session 2)
version of UNITS:
FoA
N = 119
FBE
N = 83
FoHS
N = 121
FoSE
N = 68
ALL
N = 393
col %
col %
col %
col %
col %
An improvement on the previous
version
45
59
40
52
47
Much the same as the previous
version
46
33
54
44
45
9
8
7
4
8
Not as good as the previous version
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVEL
Differences by Program Level significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01
Online Unit Guides
UG
N = 384
PG
N = 96
ALL
N = 481
I accessed the online unit guide via an iLearn
link in: **
col %
col %
col %
All of my units
75
73
74
Some of my units
20
15
19
None of my units
5
13
7
The online unit guide met my information needs in: ***
All of my units
60
68
62
Some of my units
34
20
31
None of my units
6
12
7
If you used UNITS Online Unit Guides prior
to Session 2 2014, do you find the current
(Session 2) version of UNITS:
UG
N = 328
PG
N = 64
ALL
N = 393
col %
col %
col %
An improvement on the previous version
48
47
47
Much the same as the previous version
44
48
45
8
5
8
Not as good as the previous version
45
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODE
Differences by Attendance Mode significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01
Online Unit Guides
Internal
N = 332
I accessed the online unit guide via an iLearn link
in: ***
col %
All of my units
78
Some of my units
None of my units
External
N = 76
Both
N = 48
ALL
N = 481
col %
col %
59
65
74
17
24
31
19
5
17
4
7
All of my units
62
60
49
62
Some of my units
33
24
45
31
None of my units
5
16
6
7
col %
The online unit guide met my information needs in: ***
If you used UNITS Online Unit Guides prior to
Session 2 2014, do you find the current (Session 2)
version of UNITS:
Internal
N = 279
External
N = 53
Both
N = 40
ALL
N = 393
col %
col %
col %
col %
An improvement on the previous version
48
34
58
47
Much the same as the previous version
46
53
38
45
7
13
5
8
Not as good as the previous version
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF STUDY
Differences by Year of Enrolment significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01
Online Unit Guides
Year 1
N = 179
Year 2+
N = 302
ALL
N = 481
I accessed the online unit guide via an iLearn link
in: ***
col %
col %
col %
All of my units
84
69
74
Some of my units
11
24
19
5
8
7
All of my units
67
59
62
Some of my units
29
33
31
None of my units
4
8
7
None of my units
The online unit guide met my information needs in:
If you used UNITS Online Unit Guides prior to
Session 2 2014, do you find the current (Session 2)
version of UNITS:
Year 1
N = 136
Year 2+
N = 257
ALL
N = 393
col %
col %
col %
An improvement on the previous version
51
46
47
Much the same as the previous version
41
47
45
8
7
8
Not as good as the previous version
46