Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
description
Transcript of Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
Charles D. Dziuban
Patsy D. Moskal
University of Central Florida
The University of Central Florida
Distributed Learning Impact Evaluation
Students Faculty
Reactive behaviorpatterns
SuccessSatisfaction
Demographicprofiles
Retention
Strategies forsuccess
Online programs
Writing project model
Large online classes
Higher orderevaluation models
Student evaluation ofinstruction
Theater
Informationfluency
Generationalcomparisons
A value-added model of technology-enhanced learning
Web-Augmented
(E)
Faculty Initiative Institutional Initiative
Blended(M)
FullyOnline
(W)
Access andTransformationEnhancement Engagement
Student Success
Success rates by modalitySpring 01 through Spring 03
9193
91 90
94
91 9191
97
94
91
97
92 9189
93
9092 92 92 91
75
80
85
90
95
100
Spring 01
Summer01
Fall 01
Spring 02
Summer02
Fall 02
Spring 03
F2FMTotal N= 139,444 studentsW
Per
cent
Success rates by modality for Health & Public Affairs
91
9694 93 92 91 91
96
99 98 98 99 98
95
9294
91 91
95
92 91
74767880828486889092949698
100
Spring 01
Summer01
Fall 01
Spring 02
Summer02
Fall 02
Spring 03
F2FMW
Per
cent
Total N= 26,073 students
Success rates by modality for Arts & Sciences
92 91 92 91
94
91 9190
96
9088
98
87 8787
93 9290
92 93
90
74767880828486889092949698
100
Spring 01
Summer01
Fall 01
Spring 02
Summer02
Fall 02
Spring 03
F2FMW
Per
cent
Total N= 49,460 students
Success rates by modality for Education
9799
96 9698 98 9898 100 99 99 98 98 9897 97
9597 96 96 95
74767880828486889092949698
100
Spring 01
Summer01
Fall 01
Spring 02
Summer02
Fall 02
Spring 03
F2FMW
Per
cent
Total N= 10,822 students
A segment model for success
85.9%n=11,286
85.8%n=6,460
91.5%n=2,079
72.7%n=378
86.7%n=2,369
86.5%n=5,639
74.8%n=821
94.1%n=1,036
89.1%n=1,043
64.7%n=148
79.6%n=230
88.4%n=3,263
84.1%n=2,376
68.9%n=298
78.5%n=526
Arts & Sciences,Business Admin.,Hospitality Mgmt. Education Engineering
Health & Pub. Affairs
F2F, E, M W
females males A&S BA & Hosp. mgmt
F2F E, M, W E, MF2F
Overall
Student Satisfaction
Student satisfaction in fully online and mixed-mode courses
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
39%Fully online (N = 1,526)Mixed-mode (N = 485)
41%
11% 9%
Very SatisfiedUnsatisfiedSatisfied
Neutral
38%
44%
9%
Very Unsatisfied
3% 5%1%
Student satisfaction with online learning
• Convenience
• Reduced Logistic Demands
• Increased Learning Flexibility
• Technology Enhanced Learning
Reduced OpportunityCosts for Education
Students’ problems with online learning
• Reduced Face-to-Face Time
• Technology Problems
• Reduced Instructor Assistance
• Overwhelming
• Increased Workload
Increased OpportunityCosts for Education
Student Generations
Some characteristics of the generations
• Matures (prior to 1946)• Dedicated to a job they take on• Respectful of authority• Place duty before pleasure
• Baby boomers (1946-1964)• Live to work• Generally optimistic• Influence on policy & products
• Generation X (1965-1980)• Work to live• Clear & consistent expectations• Value contributing to the whole
• Millennials (1981-1994)• Live in the moment• Expect immediacy of technology• Earn money for immediate
consumption
The Digital GenerationLearning Style• Twitch Speed
• Parallel Processing
• Graphics First
• Connected
• Active Learning
• Learn by Play
• Learn by Fantasy
• Technology Friendly
Lifestyle• Special
• Sheltered
• Confident
• Team Oriented
• Achieving
• Pressured
• Conventional
The Digital Generation: Challenges
Learning Style• Surface Functioning
• Difficult to Teach
• Research by “Surf”
• Weak Critical Thinking Skills
• Naïve Beliefs Regarding Intellectual Property
• Technology Preferences Have Little Institutional Context
Lifestyle• Self-focused
• Artificial Self-esteem
• Anything is Possible Orientation
• Cynical
• Life by Lottery
• “Yeah Right” Attitude
Students who were satisfied by generation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 55%
38%
26%
Boomer1946-1964
n=328
Generation X1965-1980
n=815
Millennial1981-1994
n=346
Per
cent
Better able to integrate technology into their learning
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Per
cent
67%
48%
34%
Boomer1946-1964
n=328
Generation X1965-1980
n=815
Millennial1981-1994
n=346
Because of the web I changed my approach to learning
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Per
cent
51%
37%
23%
Boomer1946-1964
n=328
Generation X1965-1980
n=815
Millennial1981-1994
n=346
Success rates by generation and course level
50
60
70
80
90
100
LowerUndergrad
UpperUndergrad
Graduate
Baby BoomerGen XMillennial
Per
cent 83%
81%75%
93% 91% 90%
96% 94% 95%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Face-to-Face Equal Mix Web
Per
cent
Classroom modality preferred by generations
Baby BoomerGen XMillennial
p = .000; n=1,149
26% 24%
39%
15%11%
22%
59% 65%
40%
Student Behavior Types
Research on reactive behavior patterns
• Theory of William A. Long, University of Mississippi
• Ambivalence brings out behavior patterns
• Provides a lens for how “types” react to different teaching styles
Resources
• Personality
• Emotional maturity
• Sophistication level
• Level of intellect
• Educational level
• Character development
A description of Long behavior types
• Aggressive Independent• high energy• action-oriented• not concerned with approval• speaks out freely• gets into confrontational
situations• Passive Independent
• low energy• not concerned with approval• prefers to work alone• resists pressure from authority
• Aggressive Dependent• high energy• action-oriented• concerned with approval• rarely expresses negative feelings• performs at or above ability
• Passive Dependent• low energy• concerned with approval• highly sensitive to the feelings of
others• very compliant
A description of Long behavior traits
• Phobic
• exaggerated fears of things
• often feels anxious
• often sees the negative side
• doesn’t take risks
• Compulsive
• highly organized
• neat, methodical worker
• perfectionist
• strongly motivated to finish tasks
• Impulsive• explosive• quick-tempered• acts without thinking• frank• short attention span
• Hysteric• dramatic and emotional• more social than academic• artistic or creative• tends to overreact
Students who were very satisfied with blended learning Long type
05
1015202530354045
AggressiveIndependent
PassiveIndependent
AggressiveDependent
PassiveDependent
39%
32% 33%
(N = 168) (N = 204) (N = 458)
24%
(N = 122)
Changed Approach to Learning in Online Class by Long Type
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
AggressiveIndependent
n=120
40%
34%37%
25%
PassiveIndependent
n=83
AggressiveDependent
n=285
PassiveDependent
n=28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Withdrawing Students Who Indicated That They Would Take Another Online Course (by Long type)
67%
32%
0%
50%
AggressiveIndependent
PassiveIndependent
AggressiveDependent
PassiveDependent
N=55
Faculty Results
A lot more time
Time to develop course as compared with a comparable face-to-face section
Morework
Equalto or
less than Wn=56
MN=43
Modality
A little more time
About the sameA little less timeA lot less time
2%
52%
21%
5%
77%
43%
2%
A lot more time
Time in weekly course administration activities as compared with a comparable face-to-face section
Morework
Equalto or
less than Wn=55
MN=42
Modality
A little more time
About the sameA little less timeA lot less time
4%
43%
15% 19%
60%
38%20%
Amount of interaction in Web classes compared to comparable F2F sections
Moreinteraction
Equalto or
less thanW
n=55M
N=40
Modality
13%
45%
16%
15%
62%
30%
2%7%
8%3%
IncreasedSomewhatincreasedAbout the sameSomewhatdecreased
Decreased
Quality of interaction in Web classes compared to comparable F2F sections
Betterinteraction
Equalto or
less thanW
n=55M
N=43
Modality
22%
30%
33%
19%
35%
37%
9%2%
14%
IncreasedSomewhatincreasedAbout the sameSomewhatdecreased
Decreased
Very satisfied
Faculty satisfaction compared with a comparable face-to-face section
Positive
Neutralor
negativeW
n=55M
N=43F2F
N=64
Modality
SatisfiedNeutralUnsatisfied
Very unsatisfied
6%
44%
44%
5%
58%
5%
49%
38%
38%
7%
7%
Relationships of faculty satisfaction with class interaction and workload (TAU-b)
W M(n=53) (n=38)
Amount of interaction .39** .34*
Quality of interaction .43** .51**
Time to develop .16 .09
Time to administer .10 .01
Time to deliver .06 .10
*p<.05; ** p<.01
Student Ratings
Facilitation of learning
Communication of ideas
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Then...
The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .93 &
The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00
If...
A decision rule based on student evaluation responses and the probability of faculty receiving an overall rating of Excellent
A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1
Overall If Rule 1College % Excellent % Excellent
Arts & Sciences 41.6 92.4Business 34.9 90.9
Education 56.8 94.8Engineering 36.2 91.3
H&PA 46.1 93.9
(N=441,758) (N=147,544)
A comparison of excellent ratings by course modality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1
F2F 42.0 92.2E 44.0 92.3M 40.6 92.0W 55.4 92.7ITV 20.9 86.7
Course Overall If Rule 1Modality % Excellent % Excellent
N=709,285 N=235,745
Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness
For more information contact:
Dr. Chuck Dziuban(407) 823-5478
Dr. Patsy Moskal(407) 823-0283
http://rite.ucf.eduhttp://www.if.ucf.edu/