1 / 27

The Cost/Benefit of Learning Objects in Teaching

The Cost/Benefit of Learning Objects in Teaching. Vicki S. Freeman, PhD, FACB University of Texas Medical Branch. Project funded by Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education, #P116B030983. WebCLS Learning Object Repository. Objectives

nasnan
Download Presentation

The Cost/Benefit of Learning Objects in Teaching

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. The Cost/Benefit of Learning Objects in Teaching Vicki S. Freeman, PhD, FACB University of Texas Medical Branch Project funded by Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education, #P116B030983

  2. WebCLS Learning Object Repository Objectives • Demonstrate the use of learning objects (LO) in CLS courses • Discuss the collection of the LO data • How this data is being used to determine the benefit of the LOs

  3. The Value of Learning Objects • Creation of instructional components that can be reused numerous times in different learning contexts • Delivery over the Internet and access by a number of individuals simultaneously, with minimal effort • Reassembly by faculty into their own lesson format to support their individual instructional goals • Efficiency and increased speed in instructional development and a decrease in faculty preparation time

  4. Normal Liver Function • Bilirubin • Serum -_______ • Urine - ________ • Urobilinogen • Urine _______ • Fecal _______ Normal Negative Trace Normal

  5. Normal Liver Function • Bilirubin • Serum -_______ • Urine - ________ • Urobilinogen • Urine _______ • Fecal _______ Normal Negative Trace Normal

  6. Post Hepatic Jaundice • Causes • Obstruction of bile duct • Bilirubin • Serum • Indirect - ___________ • Direct - ___________ • Urine - __________ • Urobilinogen • Stool - _________ - ________ • Urine - _________ - ________ Increased Increased positive decreased negative decreased negative

  7. Post Hepatic Jaundice • Causes - Obstruction of bile duct • Urobilinogen • Stool - _________ - ________ • Urine - _________ - ________ • Bilirubin • Serum • Indirect - ___________ • Direct - ___________ • Urine - __________ increased increased positive decreased negative decreased negative

  8. Bilirubin Assays - Evelyn Malloy • Principle • Bilirubin + Diazo Rgt Azobilirubin • Diazo Reagent = • Sulfanilic acid + HCl + Sodium nitrite (NaNO3) • Conjugated (direct) bilirubin gives an immediate reaction • Unconjugated bilirubin must have albumin bond broken with methanol

  9. Interactive LO

  10. LEARNING OBJECT PROPERTIES TITLE: pCO2 Electrode System SUBJECT: Chemistry FORMAT: Illustration OBJECTIVE: Discuss the principle of electrochemistry in the detection of CO2 in terms of composition of electrode pairs, types of selective membranes required, buffers that may be required and endpoint detection method. DESCRIPTION: pCO2 Electrode System KEYWORDS: pCO2 Electrode System, Blood Gas, Acid/Base Balance INSTRUCTIONAL TEXT: The modified glass electrode with a jacket containing bicarbonate buffer and a semi-permeable gas membrane measures pCO2. Barometric pressure is important in the calibration of the electrode and temperature is a critical factor in how the electrode detects the ions. Please move the mouse over the pCO2 to learn more. CAPTION: pCO2 Electrode System ALT TAG: pCO2 Electrode System

  11. Data Collection Database • A screen for each LO provides data about • the LO and a data entry point. • The development and production teams enter their time and activities into the relational database for each LO.

  12. Levels of LOs • Learning Objects developed • Level 1 (pictures, graphics) = 266 • Level 2 (animation, video) = 102 • Level 3 (interactive, flash) = 60 • Public status = 273 Goal: 175 LevelYear 1Year 2Year 3 1 20 30 25 2 10 25 20 3 5 15 25

  13. Reports A screen for each LO provides data about the LO and a data entry point. The development and production teams enter their time and activities into the relational database for each LO.

  14. Reports Learning Object Properties Detail Learning Object Properties [ Edit ] LO ID: 309 File Name: CheIll2-309v3.swf Subject: Chemistry Format: Illustration Level: 2 Preview Version: 3 Status: Public Created: 2/10/2005 1:59:58 PM (by Smith, Toby) Last Updated: 3/4/2005 3:48:48 PM (by Larson, Carol) Total Effort Expended: 225 minutes (3.75 hours) [ Add Effort | View Effort ] Estimated Cost of Effort: $ 90.14 Worklist: View Worklist Assignments Downloads: 8 (last download: 3/21/2006 9:49:02 AM) Evaluations: 7 [ View ] The reports are generated to summarize the data that has been entered and to calculate the cost of the effort.

  15. Reports

  16. Reports Effort Expended Detail

  17. Active Faculty/Student Usage/Acceptance High Quality Learning Objects CLS Accessibility Project Summative Benchmarks of Success Comprehensive Web-based Dissemination Resource Cost Effective/ Sustainable Formative Assessments of Success Learning Objects Faculty/Student Usage Web-based/Dissemination Cost Effectiveness/ Sustainability Accuracy/clarity/currency Faculty training activities Web-accessible data base Development cost analyses Linkages with related national and regional sites Interactivity/durability Faculty usage strategies Benefits analyses Three levels of learning Student usage/performance Marketing results Promotion among national and regional CLS groups Faculty/student critiques of learning objects Replicability Licensing agreement Tracking system Institutionalization Evaluation

  18. Evaluation Data

  19. Evaluation Data

  20. Evaluation Data

  21. User Data

  22. Evaluation Data

  23. Evaluation Data

  24. Evaluation Data

  25. Evaluation Comments

  26. Conclusions • The individuals who access the LO website were primarily CLS and CLT faculty members, but about 10% were students of these programs. • The amount of time saved through using LOs averaged one hour per user. • 39 users reported that their students’ content comprehension improved because of the LOs they used. • Of the 214 respondents, 97% reported that they would use the LOs again and planned to use other LOs.

  27. www.webcls.utmb.edu/lo The Cost/Benefit of Learning Objects in Teaching http://www.vfreeman.utmb.myefolio.com/ Vicki S. Freeman, PhD, FACB University of Texas Medical Branch Project funded by Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education, #P116B030983

More Related