1 / 43

Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges

Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges. Charles D. Dziuban Patsy D. Moskal University of Central Florida. The University of Central Florida. Distributed Learning Impact Evaluation. Faculty. Students. Online programs. Success. Writing project model. Satisfaction.

ona
Download Presentation

Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges

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. Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges Charles D. Dziuban Patsy D. Moskal University of Central Florida

  2. The University of Central Florida

  3. Distributed Learning Impact Evaluation Faculty Students Online programs Success Writing project model Satisfaction Demographic profiles Retention Higher order evaluation models Reactive behavior patterns Strategies for success Theater Student evaluation of instruction Information fluency Generational comparisons Large online classes

  4. A value-added model of technology-enhanced learning Fully Online (W) Web- Augmented (E) Blended (M) Access and Transformation Enhancement Engagement Institutional Initiative Faculty Initiative

  5. Student Success

  6. Success rates by modalitySpring 01 through Spring 03 F2F Total N= 139,444 students M W Percent

  7. Success rates by modality for Health & Public Affairs F2F Total N= 26,073 students M W Percent

  8. Success rates by modality for Arts & Sciences F2F Total N= 49,460 students M W Percent

  9. Success rates by modality for Education F2F Total N= 10,822 students M W Percent

  10. A segment model for success 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 F2F, E, M W F2F E, M, W 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

  11. Student Satisfaction

  12. Student satisfaction in fully online and mixed-mode courses 44% Fully online (N = 1,526) 41% 39% 38% Mixed-mode (N = 485) 11% 9% 9% 5% 3% 1% Very Satisfied Neutral Very Unsatisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied

  13. Student satisfaction with online learning • Convenience • Reduced Logistic Demands • Increased Learning Flexibility • Technology Enhanced Learning Reduced Opportunity Costs for Education

  14. Students’ problems with online learning • Reduced Face-to-Face Time • Technology Problems • Reduced Instructor Assistance • Overwhelming • Increased Workload Increased Opportunity Costs for Education

  15. Student Generations

  16. Matures (prior to 1946) Dedicated to a job they take on Respectful of authority Place duty before pleasure Baby boomers (1946-1964) Live to work Generally optimistic Influence on policy & products Some characteristics of the generations • Generation X (1965-1980) • Work to live • Clear & consistent expectations • Value contributing to the whole • Millennials (1981-1994) • Live in the moment • Expect immediacy of technology • Earn money for immediate consumption

  17. Learning Style Twitch Speed Parallel Processing Graphics First Connected Active Learning Learn by Play Learn by Fantasy Technology Friendly Lifestyle Special Sheltered Confident Team Oriented Achieving Pressured Conventional The Digital Generation

  18. Learning Style Surface Functioning Difficult to Teach Research by “Surf” Weak Critical Thinking Skills Naïve Beliefs Regarding Intellectual Property Technology Preferences Have Little Institutional Context Lifestyle Self-focused Artificial Self-esteem Anything is Possible Orientation Cynical Life by Lottery “Yeah Right” Attitude The Digital Generation: Challenges

  19. Students who were satisfied by generation 55% 38% 26% Percent Boomer 1946-1964 n=328 Generation X 1965-1980 n=815 Millennial 1981-1994 n=346

  20. Better able to integrate technology into their learning 67% 48% 34% Percent Boomer 1946-1964 n=328 Generation X 1965-1980 n=815 Millennial 1981-1994 n=346

  21. Because of the web I changed my approach to learning 51% 37% Percent 23% Boomer 1946-1964 n=328 Generation X 1965-1980 n=815 Millennial 1981-1994 n=346

  22. Success rates by generation and course level Baby Boomer Gen X Millennial 96% 95% 94% 93% 91% 90% 83% 81% Percent 75%

  23. Classroom modality preferred by generations Baby Boomer p = .000; n=1,149 Gen X Millennial 65% 59% 40% 39% 26% 24% 22% 15% 11%

  24. Student Behavior Types

  25. Research on reactive behavior patterns • Theory of William A. Long, University of Mississippi • Ambivalence brings out behavior patterns • Provides a lens for how “types” react to different teaching styles

  26. Resources • Personality • Emotional maturity • Sophistication level • Level of intellect • Educational level • Character development

  27. Aggressive Independent high energy action-oriented not concerned with approval speaks out freely gets into confrontational situations Passive Independent low energy not concerned with approval prefers to work alone resists pressure from authority Aggressive Dependent high energy action-oriented concerned with approval rarely expresses negative feelings performs at or above ability Passive Dependent low energy concerned with approval highly sensitive to the feelings of others very compliant A description of Long behavior types

  28. Phobic exaggerated fears of things often feels anxious often sees the negative side doesn’t take risks Compulsive highly organized neat, methodical worker perfectionist strongly motivated to finish tasks Impulsive explosive quick-tempered acts without thinking frank short attention span Hysteric dramatic and emotional more social than academic artistic or creative tends to overreact A description of Long behavior traits

  29. Students who were very satisfied with blended learning Long type 39% 33% 32% 24% (N = 168) (N = 204) (N = 458) (N = 122)

  30. Changed Approach to Learning in Online Class by Long Type 40% 37% 34% 25% Aggressive Independent n=120 Passive Independent n=83 Aggressive Dependent n=285 Passive Dependent n=28

  31. Withdrawing Students Who Indicated That They Would Take Another Online Course (by Long type) 67% 50% 32% 0% Aggressive Independent Passive Independent Aggressive Dependent Passive Dependent N=55

  32. Faculty Results

  33. Time to develop course as compared with a comparable face-to-face section A lot more time More work A little more time 52% 77% About the same A little less time A lot less time 43% 21% Equal to or less than 5% 2% W n=56 M N=43 Modality

  34. Time in weekly course administration activities as compared with a comparable face-to-face section A lot more time 43% More work A little more time 60% About the same A little less time 38% 20% A lot less time 15% 19% Equal to or less than 2% 4% W n=55 M N=42 Modality

  35. Amount of interaction in Web classes compared to comparable F2F sections Increased Somewhat increased 45% More interaction 62% About the same Somewhat decreased 30% Decreased 16% Equal to or less than 13% 15% 8% 2% 3% 7% W n=55 M N=40 Modality

  36. Quality of interaction in Web classes compared to comparable F2F sections Increased Somewhat increased About the same 30% 35% Better interaction Somewhat decreased Decreased 37% 33% Equal to or less than 22% 19% 9% 14% 2% W n=55 M N=43 Modality

  37. Faculty satisfaction compared with a comparable face-to-face section 38% Very satisfied 44% 49% Satisfied Positive Neutral 58% Unsatisfied 44% 38% Very unsatisfied Neutral or negative 7% 6% 5% 5% 7% W n=55 M N=43 F2F N=64 Modality

  38. Relationships of faculty satisfaction with class interaction and workload (TAU-b) W M (n=53) (n=38) Amount of interaction .39** .34* Quality of interaction .43** .51** Time to develop .16 .09 Time to administer .10 .01 Time to deliver .06 .10 *p<.05; ** p<.01

  39. Student Ratings

  40. A decision rule based on student evaluation responses and the probability of faculty receiving an overall rating of Excellent If... Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Facilitation of learning Communication of ideas Then... The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .93 & The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00

  41. A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 Overall If Rule 1 College % Excellent % Excellent Arts & Sciences41.6 92.4 Business 34.9 90.9 Education 56.8 94.8 Engineering 36.2 91.3 H&PA 46.1 93.9 (N=441,758) (N=147,544)

  42. A comparison of excellent ratings by course modality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 Course Overall If Rule 1 Modality % Excellent % Excellent F2F 42.0 92.2 E 44.0 92.3 M 40.6 92.0 W 55.4 92.7 ITV 20.9 86.7 N=709,285 N=235,745

  43. Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness For more information contact: Dr. Chuck Dziuban (407) 823-5478 dziuban@mail.ucf.edu Dr. Patsy Moskal (407) 823-0283 pdmoskal@mail.ucf.edu http://rite.ucf.edu http://www.if.ucf.edu/

More Related