Technology Enhanced Education: Opportunities and Challenges Chuck Dziuban Patsy Moskal University of Central Florida

The University of Central Florida

A value-added model of technology- enhanced learning Technology Augmented (E) Faculty Initiative Institutional Initiative Blended (M) Fully Online (W) Access and Transformation Enhancement Engagement Learning Management Systems Web 2.0 Lecture Capture

Technology Enhanced Learning as a Boundary Object TEL Vice Provosts Librarians CIOs Deans Faculty Students Journalists Provosts Department Chairs Instructional Designers Evaluators Presidents

Shirky, C. (2009)

An Evaluation Plan

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

Student Success

Online and Blended Registrations Fully Online Courses Blended Learning Courses

Learning Return on Investment 67% more efficient classroom use Saved $6.2 million in construction costs Saved $316,000 in space maintenance costs Joel Hartman, 2010

Success rates by modality Spring 01 through Spring 03 F2F Blended Total N= 139,444 students Fully Online Percent

A Decision Tree for Success 85.9% n=11, % n=6, % n=2, % n= % n=2, % n=5, % n= % n=1, % n=1, % n= % n= % n=3, % n=2, % n= % n=526 Arts & Sciences, Business Admin., Hospitality Mgmt. Education Engineering Health & Pub. Affairs F2F, E, MW femalesmalesA&SBA & Hosp. mgmt F2FE, M, WE, MF2F Overall E=Enhanced M=Blended W=Online

Where have all the face-to-face courses gone?

Overall success rates by modality Blended (N=49,434) Percent Online (N=102,755)

Success rates by modality for Sciences Percent Blended Online (N= 6,731) (N= 22,301)

Success rates by modality for Health & Public Affairs Percent (N= 7,716) (N= 42,366) Blended Online

Success rates by modality for Education Percent (N= 7,479) (N=10,078) Blended Online

Predictors

Prediction Domains DomainsDependent Demographics Ability Academic Performance Success & Withdrawal

Relationship of online success and withdrawal with demographics Success (r 2 =.02) Withdrawal (r 2 =.01) N range = 69,000 – 133,000 r r Age.04Age-.01 Class Size-.03Class Size-.01 Adult Status.01Adult Status.03 Ethnicity.03Ethnicity.03 Gender.04Gender.04 Generation.00Generation.00 Term.04Term.04

Relationship of online success and withdrawal with SAT and ACT scores r r SAT Total-.01SAT Total.02 SAT Verbal-.01SAT Verbal.02 SAT Math.00SAT Math.01 ACT Total.02ACT Total.00 ACT Math.01ACT Math.00 ACT English.02ACT English.00 ACT SCR.01ACT SCR.01 N range = 69,000 – 133,000 Success (r 2 =.01) Withdrawal (r 2 =.01)

Relationship of Online Success and Withdrawal with GPA N range = 69,000 – 133,000 r r HS GPA.10HS GPA-.03 Current GPA.49Current GPA-.10 Cum. GPA.31Cum. GPA-.09 UCF GPA.39UCF GPA-.11 Success (r 2 = 0.37) Withdrawal (r 2 =.04)

Student Satisfaction

Student satisfaction in fully online and blended courses 39% Fully online (N = 1,526) Blended (N = 485) 41% 11% 9% Very Satisfied UnsatisfiedSatisfied Neutral 38% 44% 9% Very Unsatisfied 3% 5% 1% Percent

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

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

The Ambivalence Dimension SatisfactionDissatisfaction Ambivalence

Sources of Ambivalence Change Ambiguity Incompleteness Complexity Uncertainty Pluralism ?

Derived Model Yields 8 Dimensions of Student Perception of ALN Ambiguity Ambivalence Engagement Responsiveness Expectations Commitment Information Fluency

Web 2.0

Disruptive Innovation! There’s one in YOUR future!! And another one right behind it! Wayne Hodgins, 2007

Web 2.0 Wikis Blogs Social Networking RSS XHTML Semantic Web Podcasting Audio Video tagging Digg Zude Del.ico.us Technorati Flickr Wikipedia YouTube MySpace Facebook SlideShare Pandora Skype Folksonomy Ajax

The Generations

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

Net Generation: Marc Prensky – Learning Preferences Gaming and Fantasy Twitch Speed Connections Graphics Multitasking Active Learning Technology is my Friend

Net Generation: Howe and Strauss – Lifestyle Pressure Conventional Team Oriented Special Sheltered Confident Achievement

Tabscott: Net Generation Norms freedom customize speed personalize play integrity collaborate scrutinize

Net Generation: Twenge (Generation Me) – Lifestyle Self Focused Artificial Self Esteem Life by Lottery Cynical Anything is Possible (unrealistic) Yeah Right

Students who were satisfied by generation (non ambivalent) 55% 38% 26% Boomer n=328 Generation X n=815 Millennial n=346 Percent

Because of the web I changed my approach to learning (non ambivalent) Percent 51% 37% 23% Boomer n=328 Generation X n=815 Millennial n=346

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

Students’ description of whether they learn better alone or with others Baby Boomer Gen-X Millennial p=.000 n= 1,149

Student and faculty generations in blended and online learning FacultyStudent Mature 11% Millennial 1% N=689N=26,823 Gen X 33% Baby Boomer 55% Mature 1% Baby Boomer 6% Gen X 11% Millennial 84%

Student Ratings

Facilitation of learning Communication of ideas Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Then... The probability of an overall rating of Excellent =.97 & The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00 If... A decision rule for the probability of faculty member receiving an overall rating of Excellent (n=1,280,890) Respect and concern for students

Then... The probability of an overall rating of Poor =.90 & The probability of an overall rating of Very Good or Excellent =.00 If... A decision rule for the probability of faculty member receiving an overall rating of Poor (n=1,280,890) Facilitation of learning Communication of ideas Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Respect and concern for students

A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 (n=1,280,890) OverallIf Rule 1 College% Excellent% Excellent Education Molecular & Microbiology Health & Public Affairs Arts & Humanities Arts & Sciences Sciences Hospitality Management Business Administration Engineering

A comparison of excellent ratings by course modality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 (n=1,171,664) Blended Online Enhanced F2F ITV CourseOverallIf Rule 1 Modality % Excellent % Excellent

Technology Enhanced Education, Ghost Maps and Black Swans

London 1853 Bone PickersSewer Hunters Rag-GatherersNight Soil Men Pure FindersDustmen DredgermenBunters Mud-LarksToshers

John Snow Water borne theory Incidence mapping Henry Whitehead Miasmic Theory Interviewed patients Found index case William Farr Introduced the value of archival data Crossover data mining in a cholera epidemic: 1854

The Pump!

The Broad Street pump

What could this be???

Taleb: The Black Swan Unpredicted 9/11 Google Harry Potter Y2K Undetectable Outliers Back-Filled Narrative Monumental Impact Retrospective Prediction Market crash Technology Enhanced Learning

Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness For more information contact: Dr. Chuck Dziuban (407) Dr. Patsy Moskal (407)