Csulb Presentation November 2008
-
Upload
guestd2da3f -
Category
Education
-
view
389 -
download
2
Transcript of Csulb Presentation November 2008
1
Large Classes and Blended Learning: What Makes It Work
Mark A. Laumakis, Ph.D.
San Diego State University
Lecturer, Department of Psychology
Faculty in Residence, Instructional Technology Services
2
What I Teach: Mega Courses
• Two 500-student sections of Psychology 101 (Introductory Psychology)– One fully face-to-face (traditional)– One in a blended learning format (45% online)
3
Setting the Stage
• Spent Summer 2006 redesigning Psych 101 for a blended learning format– Blended learning integrates online and face-to-face
activities in a planned, pedagogically valuable manner (Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning, 2005)
• Utilized fundamental principles of instructional design
• Employed scholarship of teaching approach
4
• Extensive use of CPS clickers– ConceptCheck questions– Attendance– Demonstrations– Anonymous polling– Predicting outcomes– Peer instruction (Mazur)
• Extensive use of multimedia– Videos, demonstrations, and simulations from text
and web
Face-to-Face Classes
5
Clicker ConceptCheck Question
6
Clicker Results Chart
77
Clicker Data: Spring 2008
Question % Agree or Strongly
Agree
Class clicker usage makes me more likely to attend class. 92%
Class clicker usage helps me to feel more involved in class. 84%
Class clicker usage makes it more likely for me to respond to a question from the professor.
92%
I understand why my professor is using clickers in this course. 94%
My professor asks clicker questions which are important to my learning.
92%
8
Online Sessions
• Delivered via Wimba Live Classroom• Live sessions were archived for later
viewing• Sessions included
– Mini-lectures– Demonstrations– Polling questions– Feedback at the end of each session via
polling questions
9
Wimba Live Classroom Interface
10
Polling Question in Live Classroom
11
Review of Key Tools
Face-to-Face Classes
• PowerPoint
• CPS clickers
• Tablet PC
Online Sessions
• Wimba Live Classroom
12
Fall 2006-Spring 2007 Evaluation
• Evaluation led by Marcie Bober, Ph.D. (Educational Technology)
• Efforts supported by Academic Affairs, Instructional Technology Services, and College of Sciences
• Initial evaluation is part of ongoing evaluation process– Course (re)design is an iterative process– Focus on continuous improvement
13
Evaluation Tools and Strategies
• Multimethod approach included the following:
1. Week 7 “How’s It Going?” Online Survey2. In-class Observations3. IDEA Diagnostic Survey4. Student Focus Groups5. Departmental Course Evaluations6. Course Grades
14
Evaluation Findings: IDEA Diagnostic Survey
15
Evaluation Findings: IDEA Diagnostic Survey
Fall 2006 Blended
Fall 2006 Traditional
Spring 2007
Blended
Spring 2007
Traditional
Progress on objectives
70 73 77 77
Excellent teacher
65 68 69 68
Excellent course
62 72 73 71
Note: Top 10% = 63 or more
16
Evaluation Findings:Departmental Course Evaluations
17
Evaluation Findings: Fall 2006 Course Grades
Fall 2006 Grade Distribution
43
8.1
13.5
14.7
35.3
7.9
7.5
33.4
32.9
3.7
0 10 20 30 40 50
F
D
C
B
A
Gra
de
% in Category
Fall 2006 Blended
Fall 2006 Traditional
18
Evaluation Findings: Spring 2007 Course Grades
10.8
13.7
31.7
34.6
9.3
13.6
14.8
28.4
33.6
9.6
0 10 20 30 40
F
D
C
B
A
Gra
de
% in Category
Spring 2007 Blended
Spring 2007 Traditional
19
Evaluation Findings: Course Grades Fall/Spring Combined
8.7
10.8
32.6
38.8
8.7
13.6
14.8
31.9
33.3
6.7
0 10 20 30 40 50
F
D
C
B
A
Gra
de
% in Category
Blended
Traditional
20
Evaluation Findings: Fall 2007 Course Grades
Fall 2007 Course Grades
12.8
15
34.6
35.8
3.9
15
12.1
33.1
31
8.9
0 10 20 30 40
F
D
C
B
A
Gra
de
% in Category
Blended
Traditional
21
Evaluation Findings: Spring 2008 Course Grades
Spring 2008 Course Grades
14%
13%
29%
32%
13%
16%
28%
13%
30%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
F
D
C
B
A
Gra
de
% in Category
Blended
Traditional
22
Summary of Course Grade Data
Traditional vs. Blended Learning Course Grades:Fall 2006 through Spring 2008
(traditional n= 1941, blended learning n = 1981)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Course Grade
% in
Ca
teg
ory
F2F
BL
F2F 8.48% 36.17% 31.96% 12.51% 10.89%
BL 8.64% 30.98% 31.36% 14.57% 14.46%
A B C D F
2323
The Learning Continuum
20% 40% 60% 80%
EntirelyOn-lineClasses
ConventionalFace-to-Face
Classes
2424
Blended Learning = “The Sweet Spot”
20% 40% 60% 80%
EntirelyOn-lineClasses
ConventionalFace-to-Face
Classes“The Sweet Spot”
25
What’s the Latest?
• Introduction of more blended learning courses at SDSU– Students now seek out the blended learning section
• Continued evolution of online sessions– Less lecture– More demonstrations, simulations, and polling questions
• Fully online Psych 101 course in Summer 2008– Course enrollment of 66 students vs. average of 46 in previous 5
years (traditional face-to-face course)– D/F rate dropped from 14.1% to 11.0%
26
Lessons Learned
• Yes, you can do blended learning in a mega course!• Course redesign takes time and effort• Support is key• Moving to blended learning format does NOT mean
moving your face-to-face course online– You must change the way you teach
• Provide rationale to students– Why you’re doing what you’re doing
• Predict problems with technology