technology enhanced education: opportunities and challenges chuck dziuban patsy moskal university of...
TRANSCRIPT
Technology Enhanced Education: Opportunities and Challenges
Chuck DziubanPatsy Moskal
University of Central Florida
The University of Central Florida
A value-added model of technology-enhanced learning
TechnologyAugmented
(E)
Faculty Initiative Institutional Initiative
Blended(M)
FullyOnline
(W)Access and
TransformationEnhancement Engagement
Learning Management
Systems
Web 2.0
Lecture Capture
Technology Enhanced Learning as a Boundary Object
TEL
Vice Provosts
Librarians
CIOs
Deans
Faculty
Students
Journalists
Provosts
Department Chairs Instructional
Designers
Evaluators
Presidents
Shirky, C. (2009)
An Evaluation Plan
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
Student Success
Online and Blended Registrations
Fully Online Courses
Blended Learning Courses
Learning Return on Investment
• 67% more efficient classroom use
• Saved $6.2 million in construction costs
• Saved $316,000 in space maintenance costs
Joel Hartman, 2010
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
F2F
BlendedTotal N= 139,444 students
Fully Online
Per
cent
A Decision Tree for Success85.9%
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
E=EnhancedM=BlendedW=Online
Where have all the face-to-face courses gone?
Overall success rates by modality
81%89%
82% 83%91%
84% 85%84% 86% 84% 85% 88% 87% 86%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sp 06 Su 06 Fall 06 Sp 07 Su 07 Fall 07 Sp 08
Blended (N=49,434)
Per
cent
Online (N=102,755)
Success rates by modality for Sciences
Per
cent
Blended
Online
(N= 6,731)
(N= 22,301)
Success rates by modality for Health & Public Affairs
92%98% 94%93%96%97%
93%88%89%90%88%87%
90%88%
0102030405060708090
100
Sp 06 Su 06 Fall 06 Sp 07 Su 07 Fall 07 Sp 08
Per
cent
(N= 7,716)(N= 42,366)
BlendedOnline
Success rates by modality for Education
93%94%97%93%91%
97%
88% 90%90%94%91%90%94%
77%
0102030405060708090
100
Sp 06 Su 06 Fall 06 Sp 07 Su 07 Fall 07 Sp 08
Per
cent
(N= 7,479)(N=10,078)
BlendedOnline
Predictors
Prediction Domains
Domains Dependent
Demographics
Ability
AcademicPerformance
Success &Withdrawal
Relationship of online success and withdrawal with demographics
Success(r2 = .02)
Withdrawal(r2 = .01)
N range = 69,000 – 133,000
r rAge .04 Age -.01Class Size -.03 Class Size -.01Adult Status .01 Adult Status .03Ethnicity .03 Ethnicity .03Gender .04 Gender .04Generation .00 Generation .00Term .04 Term .04
Relationship of online success and withdrawal with SAT and ACT scores
r rSAT Total -.01 SAT Total .02SAT Verbal -.01 SAT Verbal .02SAT Math .00 SAT Math .01ACT Total .02 ACT Total .00ACT Math .01 ACT Math .00ACT English .02 ACT English .00ACT SCR .01 ACT SCR .01
N range = 69,000 – 133,000
Success(r2 = .01)
Withdrawal(r2 = .01)
Relationship of Online Success and Withdrawal with GPA
N range = 69,000 – 133,000
r rHS GPA .10 HS GPA -.03Current GPA .49 Current GPA -.10Cum. GPA .31 Cum. GPA -.09UCF GPA .39 UCF GPA -.11
Success(r2 = 0.37)
Withdrawal (r2 = .04)
Student Satisfaction
Student satisfaction in fully online and blended courses
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
39%
Fully online (N = 1,526)Blended (N = 485)
41%
11% 9%
Very SatisfiedUnsatisfiedSatisfied
Neutral
38%44%
9%
Very Unsatisfied
3% 5% 1%
Per
cent
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
The Ambivalence Dimension
Satisfaction Dissatisfaction
Ambivalence
Sources of Ambivalence
Change
Ambiguity
IncompletenessComplexity
UncertaintyPluralism
?
Derived Model Yields 8 Dimensions of Student Perception of ALN
Ambiguity
Ambivalence
Engagement
Responsiveness
Expectations
Commitment
Information Fluency
Web 2.0
DisruptiveInnovation!
• There’s one in YOUR future!!
• And another one right behind it!
Wayne Hodgins, 2007
Web 2.0
Wikis
Blogs
Social NetworkingRSS
XHTML
Semantic Web
Podcasting
Audio
Video
tagging
DiggZudeDel.ico.us
Technorati
FlickrWikipedia
YouTube
MySpace
FacebookSlideShare
PandoraSkype
Folksonomy
Ajax
The 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
Net Generation: Marc Prensky – Learning Preferences
Gaming and Fantasy
Twitch Speed
Connections
Graphics
Multitasking
Active Learning
Technology is my
Friend
Net Generation: Howe and Strauss – Lifestyle
Pressure
Conventional
Team Oriented
Special
Sheltered
Confident
Achievement
Tabscott: Net Generation Norms
freedom
customize
speed
personalize
play
integrity collaborate
scrutinize
Net Generation: Twenge (Generation Me) – Lifestyle
Self Focused
Artificial Self Esteem
Life by Lottery
Cynical
Anything is Possible (unrealistic)
Yeah Right
Students who were satisfied by generation (non ambivalent)
0102030405060708090
100
55%
38%26%
Boomer1946-1964
n=328
Generation X1965-1980
n=815
Millennial1981-1994
n=346
Per
cent
Because of the web I changed my approach to learning (non ambivalent)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cent
51%
37%
23%
Boomer1946-1964
n=328
Generation X1965-1980
n=815
Millennial1981-1994
n=346
0
20
40
60
80
100
Some/All Face-to-Face
Equal Mix Some/All Web
Per
cent
Classroom modality preferred by generations
Baby BoomerGen XMillennial
n= 1,149
p = .000
26% 24%
39%
15%11%
22%
59% 65%
40%
26%21%
53%
14%
40%46%
17%
36%47%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Learn Best/BetterAlone
Learn Both Ways Learn Best/Betterw/ Others
Per
cent
Students’ description of whether they learn better alone or with others
Baby BoomerGen-X
Millennial
p= .000
n= 1,149
Student and faculty generations in blended and online learning
Faculty Student
Mature11%
Millennial1%
N=689 N=26,823
Gen X33%
Baby Boomer55%
Mature1%
Baby Boomer6%
Gen X11%
Millennial84%
Student Ratings
Facilitation of learning
Communication of ideas
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Then...The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .97 &
The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00
If...
A decision rule for the probability of faculty member receiving an overall rating of Excellent (n=1,280,890)
Respect and concern for students
Then...
The probability of an overall rating of Poor = .90 &
The probability of an overall rating of Very Good or Excellent =.00
If...
A decision rule for the probability of faculty member receiving an overall rating of Poor (n=1,280,890)
Facilitation of learning
Communication of ideas
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Respect and concern for students
A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 (n=1,280,890)
Overall If Rule 1College % Excellent % Excellent
Education 58.6 97.9Molecular & Microbiology 49.9 97.6Health & Public Affairs 49.8 97.6Arts & Humanities 49.1 96.7Arts & Sciences 45.1 97.0Sciences 44.5 96.8Hospitality Management 44.1 96.6Business Administration 39.5 96.9Engineering 39.0 96.8
A comparison of excellent ratings by course modality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 (n=1,171,664)
Blended 48.9 97.2Online 47.6 97.3Enhanced 46.8 97.5F2F 45.7 97.2ITV 34.2 96.6
Course Overall If Rule 1Modality % Excellent % Excellent
Technology Enhanced Education, Ghost Maps and Black Swans
London 1853
• Bone Pickers Sewer Hunters
• Rag-Gatherers Night Soil Men
• Pure Finders Dustmen
• Dredgermen Bunters
• Mud-Larks Toshers
John Snow•Water borne theory•Incidence mapping
Henry Whitehead•Miasmic Theory
•Interviewed patients•Found index case
William Farr•Introduced the
value of archival data
Crossover data mining in a cholera epidemic: 1854
The Pump!
The Broad Street pump
What could this be???
.0000000000000000000001049
Taleb: The Black Swan
Unpredicted9/11
Harry Potter
Y2KUndetectable
Outliers
Back-Filled Narrative
Monumental Impact
Retrospective Prediction
Market crashTechnology Enhanced Learning
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/