1 / 22

SJSU Plus: SJSU- Udacity Partnership Spring 2013

SJSU Plus: SJSU- Udacity Partnership Spring 2013. Purpose. Share what was learned from SJSU- Udacity AOLE pilot project Discuss potential or “value added” of MOOCs/AOLEs Identify and facilitate conversation about questions raised by AOLE. Summary. Introduction to the SJSU AOLE project

phiala
Download Presentation

SJSU Plus: SJSU- Udacity Partnership Spring 2013

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. SJSU Plus: SJSU-Udacity Partnership Spring 2013

  2. Purpose • Share what was learned from SJSU-Udacity AOLE pilot project • Discuss potential or “value added” of MOOCs/AOLEs • Identify and facilitate conversation about questions raised by AOLE

  3. Summary • Introduction to the SJSU AOLE project • Evaluation findings • Lessons learned

  4. SJSU Plus 2013 • SJSU Plus: Announcement and purpose • First Iteration • Intro to College Algebra and Stats • Remedial Math • Enrollment

  5. Research Design and Implementation

  6. Research Questions • Who engaged and who did not engage in a sustained way and who passed or failed the AOLE courses? • What student background and characteristics and use of online material and support services are associated with success and failure? • What do key stakeholders (students,  online support services, faculty, coordinators, and leaders) tell us they have learned? 6

  7. Data & Research Design/Implementation • Exploration through contingency table analysis • Logistic-regression models examining impact on pass/fail of 18 independent variables • Grounding quantitative results in findings generated by qualitative research 7

  8. Outcomes

  9. Exploratory Example Percent Passing by Problems Submitted All Students 10% 56% 90% Passed Failed Percent 44% ≥ Problems Problems

  10. Model Findings

  11. 0.50 Model Finding Example Expected Probability of Passing* All Students & Matriculated Students Models of two groups: same results * Holding Video Time constant p(Passing) Problems Submitted

  12. Model Finding Example Expected Probability of Passing* All Students & Matriculated Students Models of two groups: same results * Holding Problems Submitted constant p(Passing) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Video Hours 12

  13. Summary of Quantitative Analysis • Student effort trumps all other variables in explaining outcomes • Clearest predicators of passing were number of problem sets submitted; video time watched • Nonlinear relationship – effect increases after baseline has been achieved • Idiosyncratic finding regarding impact of support services

  14. Qualitative Research Findings • Students: • did not understand what support was available to them • expressed desire for more help with course content • recommended to friends enrolling in the course: “Don’t fall behind.”

  15. Qualitative Research Findings • Udacity Support Providers: • best way to use us is to get help becoming “unstuck.” • most intense users of support in beginning: high school students with almost no chance of success • noted potential to provide just-in-time support in response to evidence of where many students get stuck

  16. Qualitative Research Findings • Faculty: • More extensive planning would have been productive (decision-making, engagement of partners, etc) • Enormous amount of work to develop the content • Beneficial to have team-approach to teaching at least during first iterations • Students almost never asked questions about content • Potential to develop exciting content that could help different kinds of learners become successful

  17. Lessons Learned, Potential Uncovered • Potential to deliver instruction in new ways not possible in classroom, potential to reach different kinds of learners • Potential to deliver targeted, intrusive and just-in-time supports • Potential to use MOOCs as content in flipped classrooms providing opportunities for more active learning

  18. Lessons Learned, Challenges Encountered • Faculty need to play the lead in designing and delivering the MOOC – they should also be able to make changes to the content over time • MOOC content and design requires an enormous investment of time – intellectual property rights issues should be considered up front • MOOC providers and universities operate very differently – time should be invested in developing the partnership, clarifying roles and responsibilities

  19. Lessons Learned, Challenges Encountered • MOOCs can generate very useful information in real time that can be used to target intrusive supports – but getting the information can be difficult • Learning platforms need to be designed with student in mind and students need help navigating the online environment

  20. Questions to Consider • What is the purpose of the MOOC? • Who is the intended audience? • Can supports be scaled?

  21. For More Information Elaine Collins elaine.collins@sjsu.edu Eva Schiorringeschiorring@rpgroup.org NSF Project Page: http://www.sjsu.edu/chemistry/People/Faculty/Collins_Research_Page/index.html

  22. For More Information Distance Education: Rob Firmin, Eva Schiorring, John Whitmer, Terrence Willett, Elaine D Collins, & SuteeSujitparapitaya, Case study: using MOOCs for conventional college coursework http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01587919.2014.917707#.U5CvZvldXzc

More Related