AGENDA

1. Can Course Design in an Online Masters of Arts in Teaching Program Promote Personalized Instruction through e-learning Practices Barbara Schwartz-Bechet, Ed.D. ICELW Conference June 15, 2012

2. AGENDA • Welcome • Overview of MAT & Rationale for the Research • Objective & Hypothesis • Definition of Personalized Instruction • The Research • Results and Discussion

3. Objective • To analyze current course design in an online Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program to develop an effective e-teaching framework in order to strengthen personalized learning, to develop maximum human potential, and increase student achievement in the MAT program at University of Maryland University College

4. Assumptions -Hypothesis • Students will receive better grades if the e-teaching and e- learning opportunities presented in the MAT courses are consistent with the way students perceive they learn best • Providing a variety and choice of e-teaching and e- learning opportunities is a way to personalize learning (Differentiated Instruction) • Current MAT courses may not provide enough choice of e-teaching and e- learning opportunities.

5. What is Personalized Instruction? • Personalization of instruction and learning is the effort on the part of a school to take into account individual student characteristics and needs, and flexible instructional practices, in organizing the learning environment (Keefe & Jenkins, 2000)

6. The Importance of Personalized Teaching and Learning • Personalized learning is implicit in an online learning environment due to the nature of the platform (Zajac, 2010). • Creating personalized learning stems more from an individual context of learning style than the type of platform used. • According to a study conducted by Dabrowski & Zajac (2006) comparing online learning outcomes to on site learning outcomes, found no difference between grades students received in either format. • Bourne & Moore, (2002) having analyzed much online instruction, demonstrated that asynchronous online courses are effective when compared to traditionally delivered courses, face to face.

7. Steps Taken to Achieve Objective Collected data within all MAT courses During Spring and Summer 2011 to identify e-teaching and e-learning variables Identified and classified the variables associated with personalized learning in the MAT program Surveyed students’ perceived learning styles Used the data collected to review the current courses in the MAT to program to better facilitate personalized learning.

8. Variables E-Learning [choices] E-Teaching [choices] Learning Styles Videos Websites Online activity Webinar Wimba Virtual guest Audio Written In vivo (f2f) Group presentation Written paper Video presentation Audio presentation Multi media presentation Live presentation (f2f) Conference

9. Methodology • Triangulation of Data • Subjects Perceived Learning Styles • MAT teacher candidates surveyed - enrolled Summer 2011 • Data Sources • Grade Books Summer 2011 • Assignment Choice Options – Spring & Summer • Teaching Strategies Employed – Spring & Summer

10. Personalized e-Teaching Example

11. Personalized e-Learning Example

12. Chart 2:Students Surveyed Summer 2011

13. Chart 3: Personalized Learning Style Inventory Results

14. Graph 1: MAT course numbers and the number of associated e teaching experiences provided in each course Spring 2011

16. % of e-Learning Opportunities by MAT Course

17. Comparison of Grades

18. Summary of Data Collection Summer 2011 E-Teaching Opportunities E-Learning Opportunities 24% 76%

19. Results • Most students identified themselves as visual learners, yet self-identified auditory and kinesthetic learners were almost equally self-identified. • In MAT courses that provided more variety of learning experiences and more choices in assignment presentations (e-teaching), the students did not necessarily have better grades than those in courses that used/expected less multi media (visual/kinesthetic/combination). • ALL students are learning! • No indication that personalized learning was affected by course design

20. Questions Raised by the Results include: • Is there any need to increase the types of e-teaching and e-learning choices within courses? • Would kinesthetic learning be considered ALL online learning modalities? Is it necessary to consider kinesthetic learning at all? • Is it necessary to analyze the individual variables to learning objects and their properties in the MAT program or other UMUC courses to better address personalized learning?

21. Discussion Point • Do you feel personalized instruction is crucial to student achievement in an online platform? • If so, do you believe that your course design promotes personalized instruction? And, can you describe what you have done to achieve personalized learning?

22. References • Bourne, J., & Moore, J. (Eds.). (2002). Elements of quality in online education: Practice and direction. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. • Dabrowski, M., & Zajac, M. (2006), 1000 opinii o edukacji, e-mentor nr 1913), 50-52. • Dole, S., & Bloom, L. (2009). Online course design: A Case Study. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1-11. • Downs, S. (2004). Personalized learning. Retreived from http://www.downes.ca/future/personalized.htm [ • Last accessed on May 24, 2006]. • Keefe, J.W., & Jenkins, J.M. (2000). Personalized Instruction.  Eye on Education, Inc., Larchmont, New York. • Schwartz-Bechet, B (2010). E learning for teachers: Best practices for modeling E teaching practices for e Learners who will become teachers. The International Conference on E-Learning in the Workplace program in press. • Slideshare gdtaylor, Date Published: 2009 http://www.slideshare.net/jkchapman/differentiated-instruction-in-online-environments Date Accessed: 6/21/2011 • Zajac, M. (2010). Using learning styles to personalize online learning. Retrieved May16, 2010 from: http://www.cren.pl/uploaded-files/cren-sgh_zajac_cwis.