1 / 20

Identifying the State of Online Instruction in ATE-funded Technical Education Programs

Identifying the State of Online Instruction in ATE-funded Technical Education Programs. Brian Horvitz Richard Zinser – Western Michigan University (funded by NSF#0832874). Background Context. Online enrollment in higher education continues to rise (Allen & Seaman, 2010)

herman-frazier
Download Presentation

Identifying the State of Online Instruction in ATE-funded Technical Education Programs

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. Identifying the State of Online Instruction in ATE-funded Technical Education Programs Brian Horvitz Richard Zinser – Western Michigan University (funded by NSF#0832874)

  2. Background Context • Online enrollment in higher education continues to rise (Allen & Seaman, 2010) • Community Colleges have been the area of greatest growth (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Lokken, 2009)

  3. Background Context • Acceleration in online learning creates important challenges (Lorenzo, 2010): • Student demand for online learning rising • Need for more faculty/instructors to teach online rising • Need to address skepticism of effectiveness of online learning among faculty and administrators

  4. Impetus for this Project • Little data exists on online learning in Community Colleges • ATE stakeholders interested in online learning funded by their program • Our own interest in the present transition happening in higher education (related to ongoing work at WMU) • Opportunity from DECA (funded by NSF#0832874)

  5. Goals • Investigate the amount, trends, & kinds of online learning taking place in ATE-funded programs in U.S. community colleges • Investigate attitudes and perceptions of leaders from those ATE-funded projects doing online learning

  6. Participant Pool • The researchers at the EvaluATE Center (@ WMU) allowed us to add an item to their annual ATE national survey of 220 grantees • Item: “What percent of your grant funds was spent on any aspect of development or delivery of online instruction?”

  7. Participant Pool • We sent our online survey to all projects that spent > 10% on online instruction • 31 ATE projects surveyed • 16 projects responded To be clear, we do not intend this to generalize to all ATE projects, technical education, or community colleges.

  8. Results – Course Development (highlights of results only) • 65% report less than half of instruction is online • 43% report a higher proportion of online compared to other programs in department

  9. Results – Course Development • 67% report increasing trend in online courses offered • 77% report increasing trend in students enrolling in online courses • Limited amount of online learning currently in place, but growing

  10. Results - Perceptions • Items taken directly from Sloan Foundation Report (Allen & Seaman, 2010) for comparison • Sloan surveyed higher education institutional leaders

  11. Results - Perceptions • Online learning is critical to long-term strategy ATE=89%; Sloan=74% • Faculty accept its value & legitimacy ATE=78%; Sloan=36% • Online courses have same or higher level quality as traditional ATE=83%; Sloan=79% • Why the difference related to value & legitimacy?

  12. Results – Motivators for Online • Also from Sloan Report • Top Motivators: • Attract Students from Outside Traditional Service Area (100%) • Increase Student Access (94%) • Increase Strategic Partnerships with Other Institutions (94%) • Reduce or Contain Costs (81%)

  13. Results – Barriers to Online • Top Barriers: • Students Need More Discipline in Online Courses (87%) • Higher Costs to Develop Online Courses (69%) • Lack of Acceptance of Online Instruction by Faculty (50%)

  14. Results – Lab-Based Components • Online learning intended to duplicate lab experiences • 63% reported use of some online lab-based components • Examples: simulations, videos, webinars, student recorded activity

  15. Results – Lab-Based Components • Satisfaction with online lab-based • Online lab-based components are effective for student learning (82%) • Ability to transfer learning (58%) • Easy for students to use (50%) • Satisfactory substitutes for classroom (50%) • Easy for instructors to implement (25%)

  16. Results – Lab-Based Components • Top perceived barriers to use of online lab-based • Instructors have limited time for instructional development (85%) • Instructors are satisfied with currently used teaching methods (83%) • Instructors are not aware of available methods and products (77%)

  17. Results – Lab-Based Components • Top perceived barriers to use of online lab-based (continued): • Instructors believe there is limited availability of resources to allow for the use of new methods (69%) • Instructors feel using new methods is risky (62%)

  18. Conclusions • Acceptance of online learning among this group is high • Trend is increasing online offerings • Even true of more challenging lab-based learning despite reservations • Important barriers are perceived that will need to be considered and addressed

  19. Follow-up Needed • Need for qualitative investigation to get at thinking behind perceptions and decisions • Need for larger survey that probes those projects and programs that have not made some commitment yet to online learning • Need to track change in numbers, trends and attitudes over time (like Sloan)

  20. Contact For follow-up questions or a copy of final report: brian.horvitz@wmich.edu

More Related