1 / 34

Online Accelerated Learning Research: A View From Within

Online Accelerated Learning Research: A View From Within. Jerome Stiller Raymond J. Wlodkowski, PhD. Center for the Study of Accelerated Learning Regis University CAEL Chicago November 11, 2004. Structure of this presentation:. Background Project Goals Research Questions Methods

natalie-lara
Download Presentation

Online Accelerated Learning Research: A View From Within

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. Online Accelerated Learning Research:A View From Within Jerome Stiller Raymond J. Wlodkowski, PhD. Center for the Study of Accelerated Learning Regis University CAEL Chicago November 11, 2004

  2. Structure of this presentation: • Background • Project Goals Research Questions • Methods • Findings • Further Analysis and Reporting • Phase II • Implications • Q/A

  3. Online Research Project Background • Phase I : an examination of online accelerated learning. • Phase II : a comparison of online accelerated learning with classroom based accelerated learning. • Rigorous research yielding useful results. • Collaborative approach.

  4. Phase I Goals • Assess online courses in terms of learning outcomes and student perceptions; • Better understand characteristics of online accelerated learning students; • Understand the relationship of attitudes, motivation, and other factors to student performance and persistence; and • Identify variables that may indicate students who are at risk.

  5. Phase II Goals • assess and understand differences between attitudinal, motivational, instructional, and performance variables in online and classroom based accelerated courses; and • assess the quality of online accelerated courses in the undergraduate program relative to the quality of ground based accelerated courses.

  6. Phase I Sampling • All online students in Fall 03, Spring 04, and Summer 04 • Management, Management of Human Resources, College Algebra. • Recruited via email. • Offered prizes for participation.

  7. Phase I Results Overview ORS n=221 ALS n=186 EOC n=172 Human Resource Management n=84 Business Management n=68 College Algebra n=63 Fall n=94 Spring n=73 Summer n=54

  8. Sample Demographics • Average age = 35 (sd= 8.1 range 21- 58). • Most are married (61%), some divorced (19%), some single (20%). • Most do not have kids (43%), or are 2 parent families (42%), some single parents (15%). • Median household income = $40,000 - $60,000, but 15% report over $100,000.

  9. Sample Demographics • 22% report mother having a college or graduate degree. • 20% report father having a college or graduate degree. • Most (96%) are currently seeking a Bachelor’s degree, while 60% say they plan to seek a Master’s degree. • Most (81%) work full time, 9% work part time.

  10. Paying for college • 56% receive financial aid. • 38% receive employer reimbursement. • 12% receive VA benefits. • 1% report having a scholarship. • 12% report having no outside financial support.

  11. Reasons for Attending • Almost all (96%) are here to complete a degree. • Type of programs available, academic reputation, and availability of accelerated courses were listed as among the top 2 reasons for attending. • Quality and availability of online courses also mentioned frequently as important reasons.

  12. Would they attend again? • Definitely yes – 58% • Probably yes – 29% • Uncertain - 9% • Probably no - 4%

  13. Student Concerns • Family and work responsibilities biggest concern (34%). • How to pay for education (26%). • Amount of time and/or level of work (14%). • No major concern (20%).

  14. Attitudes about Accelerated Learning • 66% prefer accelerated to traditional courses. • 29% report their preference for accelerated courses vs. traditional as dependent on the situation. • 3% prefer traditional courses.

  15. Online Readiness • 63% had “high” need to take this course immediately. • Socializing with classmates not particularly important to 49%, somewhat important to 42%, and very important to 9%. • Classroom discussion sometimes helpful to 64%.

  16. Online Readiness • 44% say they have about the same amount of time for an online class as they do a ground based class. • But 35% say they have less time to work on an online class than for a ground based class. • Over 90% report being either somewhat or very confident with the subject matter. • 80% have taken an online course before; 73% more than one.

  17. Motivation: Enhancing Inclusion • I enjoy my contact with faculty: 63% • I feel like a valued member: 62% • Makes efforts to accommodate adult students: 92% • My experience based comments are accepted by my professors: 90%

  18. Motivation: Developing Attitude • When I make mistakes, I figure out why: 94% • I ask the instructor to clarify concepts: 83% • Understanding the subject matter is very important to me: 95% • I prefer course material that really challenges me: 86%

  19. Motivation: Enhancing Meaning • I have acquired knowledge and skills applicable to work: 89% • I figure out how academic work fits with professional experience: 85% • I find the materials to be relevant: 89% • I am becoming more effective at important things as a result of this course: 88%

  20. Motivation:Engendering Competence • I think I do well in my classes: 88% • Even when the work is hard I can learn it: 91% • I enjoy increasing my understanding of the subject material: 92% • I am confident I can understand the most complex material presented: 86%

  21. Relevance and Practical Value • strong emphasis on personal relevance in this course 85% • strong emphasis on practical value in this course 90% • 70% say that the course is relevant to career goals, 23% say somewhat relevant.

  22. Relationships • Inclusive relationships with other students 82% • Encouraging relationships with faculty 80%

  23. Course Evaluations • 91% agreed that the course was a valuable learning experience. • 89% would recommend the course to others. • 93% felt the climate was friendly and respectful. • 96% felt the grading standards required college level performance.

  24. Instruction and Materials • 96% felt the instructor was knowledgeable about the subject area. • 87% felt the course module and/or syllabus was an effective learning guide. • 89% thought the course was well taught. • 84% felt the teaching methods helped them to learn.

  25. Student Performance - Methods • MT201 – sample questions from weekly exams (n=28). Excellent = 21-23; Very good = 18-20, Satisfactory 15-17, Not Acceptable = 14 and below. • BA452 & BA461 – Final Case Analyses, developed and rated by 3 faculty experts. Mean inter-rater reliability = .88

  26. Student Performance – MT201 • n= 28 • Excellent: 29% • Very Good: 39% • Satisfactory: 14% • Not Acceptable 18% • But – complete performance data missing from 56% of students!

  27. Student Performance BA452

  28. Student Performance – BA461

  29. Analysis Issues and Directions • What are the compelling questions that can be answered by these data? • Missing data has not been examined, for example looking at students who dropped. • Correlational analysis (e.g. motivational variables with performance) and by group analysis (e.g. dropped vs. finished).

  30. Phase I Final Report • Includes data from all 3 semesters. • Presents aggregated and disaggregated data. • Includes recommendations and suggestions for improvement. • Draft to be completed by Dec. 20, 2004. • Available for review prior to publication.

  31. Phase II • Planned in close cooperation with the Dean, the Associate Dean for Undergrad, Director of Distance Learning, DL staff, Chairs of Business and Math Depts. • Began in September 2004 and will continue through Spring 2005. • Extensive administration and faculty buy in is necessary for a quality research project. • Will hopefully generate attention and excitement in the accelerated learning community.

  32. Phase II Challenges • Logistics of matching online and ground based courses and facilitators. • General lack of interest by online students. • Frequent flyers. • Faculty support.

  33. Acknowledgements: • Bill Husson, Vice President and Academic Dean, School For Professional Studies • Marie Friedemann, Associate Dean, SPS Undergraduate Programs • Ellen Waterman, Director, SPS Distance Learning Program • Don Schierling, Chair, SPS Business Dept. • Mohammed Lotfy, Chair, SPS Math Dept. • Brave and/or enthusiastic faculty members

  34. Want to find out more about accelerated learning? • Commission for Accelerated Programs www.capnetwork.org

More Related