1 / 28

Teaching and Engaging Computer Literacy Students in a Digital Environment

Teaching and Engaging Computer Literacy Students in a Digital Environment. Bill Jaber, PhD and Mava Wilson, PhD Computer Information Systems Lee University, Department of Business. Background. Computer literate student population Varying degrees of literacy

helene
Download Presentation

Teaching and Engaging Computer Literacy Students in a Digital Environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Teaching and Engaging Computer Literacy Students in a Digital Environment Bill Jaber, PhD and Mava Wilson, PhD Computer Information Systems Lee University, Department of Business

  2. Background • Computer literate student population • Varying degrees of literacy • Disengaged in the introductory course • Computer literacy classes not meeting needs • Met and discussed with the administration a new plan for the computer literacy courses

  3. Student Needs • Students largely disengaged • Students growing up with technology • Misunderstood surfing and social networking as computer literate • Experience indicated students not skilled in computer concepts • CISS 100 (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint) • CISS 101 (Excel and Access)

  4. The Plan • Past computer literacy exam produced few passing scores • Developed two proposals for consideration • Plan 1 - The courses are going to be self-paced with a schedule using SAM and e-books/traditional textbooks • Plan 2 - The courses are going to traditional classroom setting • Presented these plans to Department Chair and Dean • The administrations elected to try Plan 1 • Pilot in Fall 2010, Expanded Pilot in Spring 2011 • Implementation in Fall 2011

  5. The Design • General Literacy Course • Pre/Post-Tests in Excel, Word, PP, Computer Literacy • Option to receive “P” by passing all four with 80+ • No one was eligible Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 • Fall 2010 • SAM and e-book • Two sections • Spring 2011 • SAM and B/W printed copy of textbook • TA for every 25 - 30 students • Tutoring Labs monitored by TAs • Two sections

  6. The Design (cont) • Business Literacy Course • Two regular sections (30 – 32 students) – Fall 2010 • SAM and Printed textbooks • Pre/Post-Tests in Excel & Access • Two large sections (50 – 60 students) – Spring 2011 • SAM and e-books • Added TAs for every 25 – 30 students • Added multiple tutoring labs monitored by TAs • Class divided into half - Students attend one day a week, plus labs • Pre/Post-Tests in Excel & Access

  7. The Design (Administrative Issues) • Fewer Sections • Fewer Part-time faculty • Faculty Administrator responsible for all sections to maintain continuity between sections (especially SAM) • Tutoring Lab TAs/Coordinator • Scheduling Rooms for Labs • ROI vs Student Achievement/Satisfaction

  8. The Design (Class Setup) • Calendar with DUE dates • Pre-Tests • Training (simulation; observe, practice, apply; not for grade) • Tutorials (simulation; up-to-three times; 10 chances per task; graded) • Projects (case problem; live in software; submit/receive feedback immediately; submit up-to-three times; graded) • Quizzes (second scenario; live in software; submit one time; graded) • Capstone Projects (cumulative; graded) • Post-Tests (graded as test)

  9. The Operation • Attendance not required • Self-paced, meeting deadlines • Material completed = course completed • Help = mini-lectures / explanations • In class • TAs • Tutoring Labs • Via email • Pre/Post Tests In-Class

  10. Student Experience • No one passed all pre-tests • eBook/access codes slow purchasing • B&W book/access codes purchased quickly • Time to get into method of learning Little attendance for 8:00 class Student group attend class SAM Very “picky” & doesn’t follow standards Mac issues

  11. Faculty Experience • TAs mediated excessive emails to faculty • Tutoring labs minimized last minute “help” on due dates • Grading scale “curve” Difficulty getting everything setup Issues with access first few days Important to have everything ready

  12. Survey Feedback Fall 2010

  13. Survey Feedback Spring 2011

  14. The Feedback (cont) • “really enjoying self-paced nature. With my schedule it makes it much easier” • “puts a lot of responsibility on the students…catch myself doing it last minute…a good grade it’s easy to attain…a matter of time management…” • “Like doing the assignments in SAM not from book” & “I love SAM!!! I hate SAM and the book together…” & “I love this kind of learning method. All CISS 100 classes should use SAM 2007” • “…wish training covered the whole project just not part…” • “…love not having to go to class in order to learn…”

  15. The Feedback (cont) • “I like the way it works. …wasn’t so picky or would give a more definitive answer to ones that are missed” & “SAM… is temperamental…” • “format of class is excellent; SAM site is not always the best to work with…automated feedback on projects … obscure or confusing leading to some degree of frustration instead rather than learning” • “Do not like this way of learning. .. Feel like I am failing in the class because of the lack of one-on-one help. Yes, I can come to class but that one period can only do so much since we do everything outside of class. I’d rather have this be a lecture class explaining in a clearer way what is in each chapter…”

  16. The Feedback (cont) • “…tutorials, case problems and quizzes are a bit of overkill. I definitely know the material by the time I am done with each section but can't help feeling like I've been asked the same question four or five times. I think it could be toned back a little bit and still learn the material well…” • “…to me, all the materials for this course helps me learn in the best possible way.” • “…the material covered in SAM is not sufficient for the Case Problems…. the instructions for Case Problems in the book are really confusing and SAM explains them MUCH better…” • “…assignments hard to complete on macbooks”

  17. The Feedback - Unexpected learning • 2010 - 87% • 12 - strongly agree • 8 - moderately agree • 3 - neutral • 0 - moderately disagree • 0 - disagree • 2011 – 72% • 26 - strongly agree • 29 - moderately agree • 10 - neutral • 3 - moderately disagree • 8 - disagree • Quick feedback on the Case problem projects is helping me to pay more attention to detail and reading instructions carefully

  18. The Feedback - 2011 Preferred Method • Doing Case Problems in: • 66 - SAM 85% • 12 - Course book 15% • Using an eBook vs Paperbook: • 9 - strongly agree • 10 - moderately agree • 19 - neutral • 8 - moderately disagree • 27 - disagree 26% preferred method 26% neutral 48% NOT preferred method

  19. The Feedback - Where Did Coursework Occur? • General Literacy • 4 - in the classroom • 19 - in my dorm • 6 - at home • 0 - where I work • 8 - computer labs on campus • Business Literacy • 6 - in the classroom • 26 - in my dorm • 13 - at home • 1 - where I work • 32 - computer labs on campus

  20. General Literacy TA Responsiveness/Helpfulness • Inquiries Outside of Class • 3 - Poor • 3 - Fair • 8 - Good • 23 - Excellent • During Classtime • 2 - Poor • 1 - Fair • 11 - Good • 23 - Excellent • During Tutoring Lab Time • 2 - Poor • 1 - Fair • 11 - Good • 22 - Excellent

  21. Business Literacy TA Responsiveness/Helpfulness • Inquiries Outside of Class • 5 - Poor • 9 - Fair • 27 - Good • 37 - Excellent • During Classtime • 2 - Poor • 8 - Fair • 28 - Good • 39 - Excellent • During Tutoring Lab Time • 2 - Poor • 10 - Fair • 27 - Good • 39 - Excellent

  22. General Literary Pre/Post-Test Results • Word - Positive increase - Highest grade 94% • 2010 Average increase 30% & 2011 Average increase 25%

  23. 2010 General Literacy Pre-Post Test Results • Excel • Positive increase • Highest Grade 84% • Average increase 46%

  24. 2010 General Literacy Pre-Post Test Results • PowerPoint • Positive increase • Highest Grade 94% • Average increase 29%

  25. Student Classification • General Literacy • 18 Freshmen • 7 Sophomore • 6 Junior • 6 Senior • Business Literacy • 39 Freshmen • 28 Sophomore • 9 Junior • 1 Senior

  26. The Next Phase - Fall 2011 • Six sections of General Literacy • Online format duplicated across all sections • 50 students per section • Adjunct faculty facilitating • Student orientation • Monitor coursework • Answer email • Monitor/maintain gradebook • Student exceptions/makeup work • Tutoring labs with TAs • Pre/Post Test monitored in lab • Three large sections of Business Literacy • Two faculty • 50 – 60 students per section • One lab-assistant per section • Half of class attend one-day-per-week • Scheduled Tutoring labs with TAs • Pre/Post Test monitored in class

  27. The Future • Questions to be answered • Outcomes • Course Organization • Lab assistants • Class size • Tutoring Labs • Faculty Load/Administration

  28. Questions? Bill Jaber, PhD bjaber@leeuniversity.edu Mava Wilson, PhD mwilson@leeuniversity.edu

More Related