Prove It! Publish It! Case Studies

Kelly Donahue-Wallace

University of North Texas

Two Case Studies in One

“A Case Study in Integrating the Best Practices of Face-to-Face Art History and Online Teaching “

Dr. Kelly Donahue-Wallace and Dr. Jacqueline Chanda

Originally published in Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning 7:1 (2005).

Reprinted in Formamente: Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca sul Futuro Digitale (Universita Telematica Guglielmo Marconi, Italy) 1:1-2 (2006) Pp. 95-106.

(posted to https://unt.academia.edu/KellyDonahueWallace)

Common Assertions in Teaching Presentations

• The students learned/retained more/better.

• The students were more engaged or got a lot out of the experience.

Case Study #1

Develop the question: Did they learn?

Case Study #1

Start with relevant educational theory:

Nelson, R. (2000). "The Slide Lecture, or The Work of Art History in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Critical Inquiry 26, 414-434.

Case Study #1

• Design the study:• Studying the effectiveness of three instructional models:

• Lecture

• Blended: face-to-face lecture plus reinforcement with an online learning object

• Online only: online text plus reinforcement with an online learning object

Case Study #1

• Research question:• Which instructional model helps students learn the

content better?• Correctness of answers

• Quality of answers using appropriate terminology

Case Study #1

• Develop the research method• Experimental Data Collection

• Exposing participants to different teaching methods

• Three groups: lecture (control), blended, fully online

• Answered three short essay questions face-to-face (not online)• Quantitative analysis=how many answered correctly

• Content Analysis• Assessing their learning through content analysis of

answers to questions.• Quantitative analysis=how many relevant terms they

employed

Case Study #1

• Answering constructed questions• Correctly identify what a mihrab niche is?

• Correctly explain the typical parts of a mosque?

• Correctly explain the role of a minaret?

Case Study #1

• What did we do?• We scored the answers overall as either

correct or incorrect.

• Correct= correctly identifying the object, parts of the plan, function.

Case Study #1: Correctness of Answers Results

Questions Face-to-Face Group Face-to-Face/Online learning object group

Totally Online Group

Mihrab Niche 83% 83% 100%

Plan of Mosque 83% 100% 83%

Role of Minaret 66% 100% 100%

77% 94% 94%

Case Study #1

• Content Analysis to Assess Quality of Answers• Looking at use of terms.

• For each answer, identified 3 relevant terms that a quality answer would include.

• Created coding scheme for the data = identified relevant terms and acceptable alternatives.

• Examples of codes: • Mihrab, niche in qibla wall

• Qibla wall, wall facing Mecca

• Plan, map, floorplan

• Tower, spire, elevated structure

Case Study #1

• Content Analysis of Data to Assess Quality• What did we do?

• Counted codes (terms) in answers.

• Tallied frequency.

• Did not count other relevant terms since they were not in our coding scheme.

Case Study #1: Quality of Answers Results

Questions Face-to-Face Group Face-to-face/Online Totally Online

Mihrab Niche 11 6 13

Mosque Plan 12 18 13

Role of Minaret 9 15 12

59% 72% 70%

Case Study #2

• What did students get out of it?

Case Study #2: Perceptions

• Assessing student perception of interactive learning objects in an online art appreciation course.• Streaming videos demonstrating art-making

processes

• Flash animations• Types:

• Self-directed creation of objects

• Drag-and-drop self-assessments

• Game-like self-assessments

Case Study #2: Perceptions

• Research Questions• Which types of interactive learning objects did

online students like?

• How did online students perceive the impact of interactive learning objects on their learning?

Case Study #2: Perceptions

• Research Method• Questionnaire=qualitative and quantitative

• Open for 5 days online

• Voluntary participation

• 46 of 167 students who logged in during the 5 days participated

Case Study #2: Perceptions

• Questionnaire• Did they prefer video or Flash learning objects?

• Multiple choice

• Which types of Flash learning objects did they like?• Multiple choice

• Did they believe the learning objects impacted their learning?• Multiple choice

• How did they feel about the learning objects?• Constructed, open-ended question

Case Study #2: Perceptions

• Results (Quantitative)• Response to whether they believed that the

learning objects contributed to their learning experience: 70% yes

• Response to which type of learning object students preferred: 51% videos, 45% Flash animations

• Response to which type of Flash learning object students preferred: majority preferred self-directed creative exercise.

Case Study #2: Perceptions

• Results (Qualitative)• Responses to open-ended question of how

students felt about learning objects: • Unexpected recognition of how the interactive

components improved learning because they catered to multiple types of learners.

• Positive responses to being allowed to self-direct.

• Positive responses to instructor’s effort to include these in the course.

Case Study #1 and #2

• Discussion and implications/conclusions:• What do the results show? What conclusions can be drawn?

• Students do learn online. (#1)

• Students learn a bit more when online and face-to-face combined (blended). (#1)

• Students perceive interactive learning objects to be effective in their learning. (#2)

• Student appreciate the presence of learning objects for showing interest in their learning. (#2)

• How can this study impact the broader field?• Recommendations for actions/changes.

• Further research recommendations.

Doing Art History Pedagogy Research

• It’s not that hard.

• There are people who can help you.

• It helps the field develop and grow.

• And you can get published in journals like Art History Pedagogy and Practice.