This paper reports the findings of a small-scale study that documented the use of information technology for learning by a small group of postgraduate students. Our findings support current knowledge about characteristics displayed by effective e-learners, but also highlight a less researched but potentially important issue in developing e-learning expertise: the ability of students to manage the combination of learning and non-learning activities online. Although multi-tasking has been routinely observed amongst students and is often cited as a beneficial attribute of the e-learner, there is evidence that many students found switching between competing activities highly distracting. There is little empirical work that explores the ways in which students mitigate the impact of non-learning activities on learning, but the evidence from our study suggests that students employ a range of 'boundary management' techniques, including separating activities by application and by technology. The paper suggests that this may have implications for students' and tutors' appropriation of Web 2.0 technologies for educational purposes and that further research into online boundary management may enhance understanding of the e-learning experience.
This paper reports the findings of a small-scale study that documented the use of information technology for learning by a small group of postgraduate students. Our findings support current knowledge about characteristics displayed by effective e-learners, but also highlight a less researched but potentially important issue in developing e-learning expertise: the ability of students to manage the combination of learning and non-learning activities online. Although multi-tasking has been routinely observed amongst students and is often cited as a beneficial attribute of the e-learner, there is evidence that many students found switching between competing activities highly distracting. There is little empirical work that explores the ways in which students mitigate the impact of non-learning activities on learning, but the evidence from our study suggests that students employ a range of ‘boundary management' techniques, including separating activities by application and by technology. The paper suggests that this may have implications for students' and tutors' appropriation of Web 2.0 technologies for educational purposes and that further research into online boundary management may enhance understanding of the e-learning experience
A review of the literature relating to plagiarism suggests that there is substantial variability in approach between institutions. Some institutions tend to view all occurrences of plagiarism as academic misconduct, whilst others take a more graded view – articulated through policy and procedures that aim to quantify 'levels' of severity. Measured approaches such as these tend to rely on guides to help assess the level of severity, typically encompassing the experience of the student, the amount of material plagiarised, and the likelihood of an intention to deceive. Such judgements lead to a graded response to the student which can result in a wide range of outcomes, from educational guidance and support to expulsion from the institution. However, the intent to deceive can be extremely difficult to establish. This paper will draw on a desktop study of institutional policies and procedures in Australia and other countries to sample and summarise the myriad approaches to the definition and determination of (specifically) intent in plagiarism. Based on the findings of this review, we suggest that the treatment of intent is, at best, rather inconsistent. A series of 'probability factors' are proposed to guide further research in this area.
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.