next level e-learningelearningsymposium.gmu.edu/2007/presentations/pitt - next level... ·...

Innovations in E-Learning Symposium: June 7, 2007

Next Level eNext Level e--Learning:Learning:From Increasing Adoption to Increasing EffectivenessFrom Increasing Adoption to Increasing Effectiveness

Sharon P. PittExecutive Director

Division of Instructional Technology George Mason University


The Role of Technology in Learning• Technology is in service to the learning• Technology can extend or increase access to

education• Technology can promote learning quality

….if appropriately designed and applied to “ways of learning” such as problem solving, empirical inquiry, research and performance in the discipline



Dimensions of Effectiveness• Curriculum Development• Communication and

Collaboration• Planning and

Assessment• Learning Technology• Faculty support• Student support



Curriculum Development• Practice “pedagogy first”--focus on learning and quality• Technology should be linked to learning goals



Communication• Use Existing Structures

– Faculty Senate Technology Policy– SALT

• Develop Engagement Strategies– Interest Groups (e.g. MMUG, IDIG)– ITU Project Committees (e.g. CCS, eLMS Training

and Support)– Official liaisons to university units (e.g. libraries,

CTE)



Communication• Clear broadcast of information• Multiple feedback channels• Space for “historical baggage”• Share facts and strategic concerns• Seek resolution between top down and bottom up

messages• Share data



Collaborative Behavior/Action• Within the university• External to the University (or higher ed)• External to the University (product and service

providers)


Review key findings from national studies• Most students have used an LMS have had positive experiences• A good experience translates into positive feelings about IT and

learning• IT is improving learning (according to students)

- ECAR, Students and Information Technology (2005)

• Faculty adoption of LMS is focused on class management• After faculty start to use an LMS, their use grows as they begin to

see increased uses for teaching• For the smaller percentage of faculty who reduce use of a LMS, it

is because the technology was time consuming, inflexible and difficult to use.

- ECAR, Faculty Use of CMS (2003)



Planning and AssessmentLevel Type What methods can be used?

Technology Use / Attitudes / Features

Course Level Ex. Offer web-based writing modules within LMS and devote class time to assisting students with writingResult: Students in enhanced section perform better on writing tasks

Program Level Ex. TAC Blog CohortResult: Increased use of tools that have an impact on learning

Institutional Level

Ex. University-wide surveysResult: Understand and respond to LMS use trends



What does technology assessment tell us?

• Adoption– Are faculty using tools?– When are course sections being requested?– When is intensive support needed?– What are appropriate times for planned outages?

• Learning effectiveness– What learning features are faculty using?– What colleges/disciplines are/aren’t using the LMS?



What about other assessment?1. Are learning objectives of a course/program being

met?2. What are best practices in a discipline?3. What tools are most useful in small or larger

courses/undergraduate or graduate level courses?4. What combinations/clusters of LMS tools forward

cooperative learning, active learning, and peer to peer learning?

5. How can the faculty support unit focus training and workshops on improved learning?



What outside-the-classroom technologies did faculty use (by college)?College

% Saying Used Technology Outside of Class All

PE /MUS CALS COD CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT CVM COM

Elec communication with students 94.0 92.3 92.1 88.5 95.2 97.8 92.9 96.6 92.7 92.9 75.0 92.3

Student work prep with wordprocessor etc 79.5 56.0 81.6 92.6 95.1 87.7 96.4 87.5 51.8 88.5 42.9 77.8

Use of digital content resources 71.1 29.2 75.4 77.8 83.6 71.9 71.4 80.5 41.2 92.9 60.7 81.3

Work submitted electronically 63.8 37.5 56.0 74.1 87.3 64.2 60.7 73.2 55.1 57.1 35.7 58.5

Elec communication among students 52.8 47.8 47.1 68.0 75.0 64.9 63.0 56.2 40.3 53.6 11.5 40.0

Learning management systems 41.8 30.4 29.3 38.5 51.7 63.0 50.0 35.4 45.5 50.0 11.1 43.1

Use of course-specific software 31.4 8.3 23.4 59.3 33.3 61.3 39.3 12.5 51.9 32.1 0.0 23.4

Other* 25.6 14.3 13.5 75.0 26.7 21.4 0.0 30.1 37.5 14.3 0.0 31.6

* Respondents could use a write-in box to indicate what other technologies they used. 2003 LITRE Survey @ NC State



What outside-the-classroom technologies did faculty use (by course type)?

Course Size and Level

% Saying Used Technology Outside of Class All SmLow MedLow LrgLow SmUp MedUp LrgUp SmGrad MedGrad LrgGrad

Elec communication with students 94.0 97.1 94.8 94.9 97.6 93.6 91.2 88.9 88.4 95.2

Student work prep with wordprocessor etc 79.5 84.3 70.2 53.0 92.3 83.7 76.4 84.1 79.1 52.4

Use of digital content resources 71.1 72.0 61.1 50.5 81.0 73.2 61.8 76.8 77.3 71.4

Work submitted electronically 63.8 78.2 63.1 61.6 68.1 58.5 42.9 65.1 63.6 42.9

Elec communication among students 52.8 47.5 51.9 39.2 65.5 47.9 49.1 57.1 45.2 36.8

Learning management systems 41.8 41.0 39.1 57.0 42.3 43.1 67.3 28.0 31.8 40.0

Use of course-specific software 31.4 21.2 19.1 34.0 35.7 29.5 30.9 37.1 40.9 38.1

Other* 25.6 32.0 10.5 40.0 30.8 33.3 12.5 22.0 25.0 0.0

* Respondents could use a write-in box to indicate what other technologies they used.


2003 LITRE Survey @ NC State


Learning Technology Infrastructure• Key factors

– Robust and reliable– Modular and extendable– Embedded in learning objectives of the

course/discipline/program– Grounded in principles/methods of effective

learning



New Learning Technologies• Learning Management Systems

– e.g. Angel, Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Moodle, Sakai, Elluminate, Horizon Wimba• Communication Tools

– e.g. Email, text messaging, IM, VOIP• Collaboration Tools

– e.g. access grid, SharePoint, conferencing (video/web), wikis• Content Management and Digital Repositories (for learning)

– e.g. CommonSpot, dSpace, Harvest Road, iTunes, MERLOT• Gaming

– e.g. alternate reality, simulations, storytelling, virtual worlds• Classroom Capture Systems

– e.g. Apreso Classroom, Accordant, MediaSite Live• Software as a Service

– Virtual Computing Lab• Social Networking

– e.g. del.icio.us, FaceBook, Flickr• Web-based Broadcast Services

– e.g. blogs, podcast (audio and video), CATV over IP, screencasting



Effective methods/practices• Active learning• Empirical inquiry• Problem solving• Reflection• Immediate feedback• Student/expert collaboration• Expert assessment• Performance• Visual learning• Applied research• Problem-based learning• Experiential learning

• Peer to peer collaboration• Retention• Research from sources• Discovery• Peer assessment• Creative expression• Drill and practice• Motivation• Group collaboration• Socialization with peers• Embedded in complex

systems



Faculty Support• Adoption

– Online technology training modules– Access to local support

• Learning Effectiveness– Immersion programs– Customized workshops– Access to consulting/instructional house calls– Build staff expertise in learning--cross-train IT staff

with teaching and learning staff




Faculty Support


Student Support– Offered in multiple modes– Centered on students to lower barriers to learning

and reduce intimidation• Students mentor students and teach workshops

– Backed with adequate facilities• Computer Labs (388 seats, GMU)• Training and mentoring (STAR Labs, GMU)

– http://media.gmu.edu/• Collaborative work (Flyspace, NC State)

– http://www.ncsu.edu/flyspace• Student-centered activities for large enrollment (SCALE-UP, NC

State)– http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/scaleup.html

• Center for Digital Fluency (Johnson Center, GMU)• Study in the discipline (Math Emporium, Virginia Tech)



Discussion


next level e-learningelearningsymposium.gmu.edu/2007/presentations/pitt - next level... ·...

Documents