Online Teaching and Student Success and Retention: Challenges and Opportunities Clay Walker and Thomas Trimble Humanities Center February 17, 2015

Preview – Context – The role of standardized course shells – Early assessment findings – Next steps – Discussion

Some Context Increasing online instruction at WSU Increasing online offerings in Gen. Ed. composition courses Develop course design and professional development infrastructure Standardized course shells Professional development teaching circles

Part 1 Standardized Course Shells – Clay Walker General Principles of Online Course Design Our Goals for ENG1020 & ENG3010 Overview of Our Templates Summary: Challenges and Opportunities

General Principles of Online Course Design: Some constraints Generating course materials (lots of scaffolding; lots of writing) Predicting and pre-emptively working around student questions, confusions, etc. Developing clear and consistent connections across learning outcomes, assignment instructions, and other materials Adapting lesson plans/activities for the online environment

General Principles of Online Course Design: Two Models The silo approach to course design S1 S2 S3 Instructor/Section Instructional Designer LMS (Bb) Technicians Other Colleagues

General Principles of Online Course Design: Two Models The team approach to course design S1 S2 S3 Instructor/Section Instructional Designer LMS (Bb) Technicians Other Colleagues MCS Course Designer/Master Course Shell

Our Goals for ENG1020 & ENG3010 Develop a process for effective course design and revision – Pilot > Multiple section roll out – Orientation > Teaching circles – Revision of online course materials Use templates to develop a structured space for instructors – Pedagogical agency: What does it mean to be a creative and independent instructor?

Overview of Templates: Other Features Header Sidebar Weekly folder Weekly overview Learning outcome integration Video lectures

Overview of Templates: Assignment Template Introduction/Rationale Assignment Prompt Learning Objectives – Learning Outcome 1 – Learning Outcome 2 Minimum Requirements – Length Requirement – Research Requirement – etc. Due Date – Submit via Blackboard before 11:59 pm on Sunday of Week 1

Summary Improved quality by distributing workload – Some teaching circles worked; others did not – Avoiding problems of requiring PTF to build online course without sufficient compensation for build time Shared ownership > Deeper commitment to quality instruction (we hope) Plug and play course design facilitates transition to online teaching for those new to the practice Strong centralized design limits curricular growth without a teaching circle Some PTF/GTA instructors may view this as an opportunity to teach without teaching

Part 2 Assessment of Student Outcomes-Thomas Trimble How are students doing? How are we doing?

Literature Review No clear differences in: – Student satisfaction outcomes – Student learning outcomes – Nosignificantdifference.org Nosignificantdifference.org Possible differences in: – Grading outcomes/completion rates (Sapp and Simon, 2005; Community College Research Center, 2013) – Retention Outcomes (Community College Research Center, 2013)

Sapp and Simon (2005) Grades in online versus face-to-face writing courses Face-to FaceOnlineNet “Thrive” (B+ or higher) (%) 83%38%-45% “Survive” (C- to B) (%)17%29%+12% “Dive” (D and below, incomplete, drop) (%) 0%33%+33% n7137

Community College Research Center (2013) 9% jump in failure/withdrawal rate in online “gatekeeper” English courses 13% jump in failure/withdrawal rate in online “gatekeeper” Math courses Students who took an online class in their first semester were 4 to 5% less likely to be retained in the following semester.

Research Questions Differences in grading outcomes? Differences in retention outcomes?

Study Design Sample: All 1803 students enrolled in ENG3010 and 1020 (Fall 2014) Calculated pass rates, retention rates, and grade distributions Performed online vs. face-to-face comparisons

ENG 1020 Grade Distributions Overall Face-to- FaceOnlineNet “Thrive” (A, A-, B+)48%50%22%-28% “Survive” (B, B-, C+, C)31%30%40%+10% “Dive” (C- and below, incomplete, drop)21%20%38%+18% n (93%)95 (7%)

ENG 3010 Grade Distributions Overall Face-to- FaceOnlineNet “Thrive” (A, A-, B+)43% 40%-3% “Survive” (B, B-, C+, C)36%37%29%-8% “Dive” (C- and below, incomplete, drop)21%20%31%+11% n (87%) 65 (13%)

ENG 1020 Pass Rates and Retention Rates: Face-to-Face vs. Online 1020 overall1020 F2F1020 OnlineNet Enrolled Pass rate79%81%62%-19% Ret rate88%89%78%-11% For students who failed ENG 1020: Face-to-face retention rate = 64% Online retention rate = 50%

ENG 3010 Pass Rates and Retention Rates: Face-to-Face vs. Online F2F3010 OnlineNet Total Enrolled overall pass rate79%80%69%-11% overall ret rate88%89%83%-6% For students who failed ENG 3010: Face-to-face retention rate = 70% Online retention rate = 65%

Online Student Survey Data 8 respondents (n=160) from both 1020 and 3010 online students (5%) 100% of respondents said they expected to receive a grade of A in the course.

Survey Data: Major Findings 88% said they did not get to know their fellow students 63% said they did not get to know their instructor 100% said they would take another online class at WSU 88% said they would recommend their online writing class to friends

Questions Why are students failing at a higher rate? What can we do to increase the pass rate?

Suggested Interventions Sapp and Simon (2005) – Expand online orientation activities – Incorporate face-to-face meetings – Incorporate real-time activities – Provide prompt feedback on student work – Insist on institutional support CCRC Study (2013) – Increase instructor presence – Increase use of interactive technologies – Increase interpersonal interaction

Possible Course Revisions Enhance/revise orientation activities Require student meetings early in the semester Increased opportunities for student collaboration Use scaffolded instructor-led interventions Call students by phone

Scaffolded Instructor Interventions Week One “failure to log-in” “Failure to turn in first assignment” “Failure to turn in second assignment” “Missing work” phone call “Pre-drop deadline” phone call

Next Steps Review Fall 2014 SET scores Review Winter 2015 data Integrate intervention “schedule” into instructor training/teaching circles Ongoing improvement of course shells

Discussion