1 / 37

Karen Swan Kent State University

Assessing the Impact of Technology on Learning. Karen Swan Kent State University. Research Center for. Educational Technology. The Great Media Debate. Clark. VS. Kozma. ?. What is the question?. inputs. outcomes. processes. inputs. processes. outcomes. satisfaction retention

koen
Download Presentation

Karen Swan Kent State University

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. Assessing the Impact of Technology on Learning Karen Swan Kent State University Research Center for Educational Technology

  2. The Great Media Debate Clark VS Kozma

  3. ? What is the question?

  4. inputs outcomes processes

  5. inputs processes outcomes satisfaction retention success achievement proficiencies performance

  6. worth being familiar with important to know & do enduring understandings achievement Understanding By Design, Wiggins & McTighe

  7. inputs processes outcomes satisfaction retention success achievement proficiencies performance

  8. inputs processes outcomes learner characteristics design learning resources professional development

  9. Overall 85.9% n=11,286 Arts & Sciences, Business Admin., Hospitality Mgmt. Health & Pub. Affairs Engineering Education 85.8% n=6,460 72.7% n=378 91.5% n=2,079 86.7% n=2,369 O F2F E, M, O F2F E, M 89.1% n=1,043 79.6% n=230 94.1% n=1,036 64.7% n=148 74.8% n=821 86.5% n=5,639 females males A&S BA & Hosp. mgmt 84.1% n=2,376 78.5% n=526 88.4% n=3,263 68.9% n=298 learner characteristics factors influencing success (Dziuban & Moskal, 2006) F2F, E, M

  10. learner characteristics reactive behavior patterns (Long-Dziuban frame)

  11. inputs processes outcomes learner characteristics design learning resources professional development

  12. http://www.tltgroup.org/ design http://www.esac.org/fdi/rubric/finalsurvey/demorubric.asp

  13. inputs processes outcomes learner characteristics course design learning resources professional development

  14. inputs processes outcomes use representations conceptualizations ubiquitous technologies learning learning UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)

  15. multiple representations across a wide range of media UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)

  16. GROUP SIZE UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)

  17. CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)

  18. inputs processes outcomes SOCIAL COGNITIVE PRESENCE PRESENCE TEACHING PRESENCE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE Community of Inquiry Model (Garrison, 2006)

  19. Teaching Presence Design & Organization 1. The instructor clearly communicated important course topics. 2. The instructor clearly communicated important course goals. 3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities. 4. The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities. Facilitation 5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn. 6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking. 7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue. 8. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn. 9. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course. 10. Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants.

  20. Social Presence Direct Instruction 11. The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn. 12. The instructor provided feedback helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses. 13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion. Affective Expression 14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course. 15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants. 16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction. Open Communication 17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium. 18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions. 19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.

  21. Group Cohesion 20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust. 21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants. • Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration. Cognitive Presence Triggering Event 23. Problems posed increased my interest in course issues. 24. Course activities piqued my curiosity. • I felt motivated to explore content related questions. Exploration 26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course. 27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content related questions. 28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives.

  22. Integration 29. Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course activities. 30. Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions. 31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class. Resolution 32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course. 33. I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice. 34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities.

  23. inputs processes outcomes pedagogy interactions assessment

  24. course assignments affect course design instructor instructor /discussion instructor feedback learning pedagogy content analysis– “additional comments:” (Swan, Schenker, Lin, Shea & Aviv, 2006)

  25. pedagogy teaching presence (Shea, et al., 2003, 2004) SUMMER 2002 (n=1140) SPRING 2003 (n=6088) per. learn. satisfaction per. learn. satisfaction per. learn.

  26. inputs processes outcomes pedagogy interactions assessment

  27. interactions interactivity & generations (Hartman,Moskal & Dziuban, 2005)

  28. interactions social software commenting tools (Track Changes, audio/ video feedback) threaded discussion, chat, email whiteboards / application sharing (Elluminate, Wimba, Learnlinc) blogs wikis distributed classification systems (Digg, Plum, Flickr YouTube)

  29. inputs processes outcomes pedagogy interactions assessment

  30. assessment assessment of online discussion (Schenker, Swan, Arnold & Kuo, 2006) *significant at p>.05; **significant at p>.01

  31. Assessment Types informal checks observation/dialogue quizzes/tests academic prompts performance task/project assessment worth being familiar with important to know & do enduring understandings Understanding By Design, Wiggins & McTighe

  32. discussion postings rubrics (Pelz, 2004) assessment: rubrics

  33. assessment: rubrics article critique rubrics lesson plan rubrics

  34. assessment: e-portfolios • collection of student work providing evidence of learning • linked to learning goals • demonstrating progress over time • multiple media • include reflections on works • programmatic, across courses AAHE ePortfolio clearinghousehttp://ctl.du.edu/portfolioclearinghouse/

  35. assessment: student response systems self-assessment as well as data collection, engagement, interactivity

  36. inputs outcomes processes

  37. Research Center for Educational Technology Karen Swan Kent State University kswan@kent.edu www.rcet.org

More Related