1. Mixed-Format Undergraduate Pedagogic Delivery
Steve Buchheit| Feb. 23rd, 2011

2. Overview: What’s New Here?
Institution-specific experience at Texas Tech
RCB Mediasite experience and exposure
Pilot-study data in a required undergraduate course
Extensive-pilot-study in the same course
Implications for current cost/quality debates
College should do better argument
College should be less expensive argument
College is just fine argument

3. teaching & Technology at ttu
History of self-selection into teaching technology (TLTC: awesome but voluntary)
Mediasite enabled room for Executive-style MBA
Largely unknown, unused capacity during the week
Logistical and political concerns about using Mediasite in introductory managerial accounting

4. introductory managerial accounting (ACCT 2301) at ttu
Required course for all Business majors
Coordinated exams
Multiple “sections” per semester (4 – 8)
Avg. class size ≈ 55 to 70 students
Taught by a wide range of instructors
Doctoral student through full professor
Lecture style
On-line homework (Blackboard)

5. Spring 2010 Logistical & Political concerns
Logistical: “Fitting” a large class into a 35 person Mediasite-enabled room
Political: Not upsetting ANY students (thus, self-selection)

6. Spring 2010 Logistics Day 1 Mediasite visual demo
Surveyed potential student interest
Exam 1
Remind students about room change
Remind students about virtual class option
Exam 3
Conclude Qualtrics surveys, return to original format (final week of class).

7. Spring 2010 Unexpected Political concerns
Upsetting faculty
Accounting faculty not directly affiliated with introductory managerial accounting
Concerns
“Turning off” potential accounting majors
Jeopardizing success (Texas Tech is currently #12 in CPA pass rate; 100% MSA placement)

8. Spring 2010 Results, Part 1
25% of students physically attended class (target section only)
Virtually no participation from non-target sections (4 students)
Significantly positive student attitudes
Both testimonials and Likert Scale items.
Only reported drawback, ‘insufficient internal discipline’

9. Spring 2010 Results, Part 2 Student evaluations improved!
4.85 out of 5 (all other instructors 3.48 out of 5)
4.85 vs. same-instructor, prior semester 4.68 (p value = .06)
Target class > Non-target class (p value = .02)
‘Virtual’ participants ≥ ‘In seat’ participants
(+ 2% improvement was not significant)
Only 1 student interacted ‘live’ with Mediasite
Note: the Mediasite class was at 8:00 am
Discontinued use of TurningPoint’s ResponseWare

10. Fall 2010 Extensive Pilot Study – Same course
Two different instructors on Mediasite
Both instructor’s lectures available to all students
Student Awareness not an issue
Logistical “fit” into Mediasite room not an issue
Extensive Day 1 explanation & Surveys

11. Fall 2010 Logistics Day 1 Mediasite visual demo
Surveyed student interest / ZTPI scale
Directed students to Mediasite room
Exam 3
Return to original format (final week of class).
Surveyed students

12. Fall 2010 Results, Part 1 25% of students physically attended class
(≈ 20% at 8:00 am; ≈ 30% during later classes)
Self-reporting consistent with instructor observation
26% of students claimed to mix physical attendance with ‘virtual attendance’
Self-reporting not consistent with instructor observation (other than the single class just prior to exams)

13. Fall 2010 Results, Part 2
84% of students successfully finished the course
Slightly better than prior semesters
Multiple caveats (increasing BA gpa, etc.)
Within-semester performance slightly better
Multiple caveats (attempt to control difficulty, etc.)
ZPTI scale not effective at predicting success.

14. Fall 2010 Results, Part 3
Students overwhelmingly found ‘virtual participation’ a good thing.
Zero-scaled 5-pt Likert average = 1.48 (p < )
We didn’t increase the score for ‘write-ins’
Stated rationale supported the numeric results
next slide
Only 4% rated the option worse than neutral
Surprisingly all but one took responsibility (“lack of discipline” explanations)

15. Fall 2010 Results, Part 4 Why was the Mediasite option useful?
It wasn’t (4%), no response (4%), indifferent (5%)
Work at own pace (4%)
Multiple teacher’s perspectives (9%)
Safety (15%)
Flexibility, work on own time (23%)
‘Rewind’ option (36%)

16. Fall 2010 Results, Part 5 Student evaluations improved!
‘New experience’ 4.09 vs. same-instructor, prior semester 3.73 (p value = .03)
‘Repeat experience’ remained exceptional (4.78 FA10)
Where to go from here?

17. What’s Next? Prior-semester lectures & current ‘live’ lecture
SP 11, ≈ 30% attendance
‘preview’ lecture anecdotes
Implications for current cost/quality debates
College should do better argument
College should be less expensive argument
College is just fine argument

18. College should do better argument
“Academically Adrift” view
Take lecture ‘off line’ & enable more in-class critical thinking, writing, etc.
Personal view
This would be very difficult at the sophomore level.
We are ‘screening’ a large number of students with limited resources
Lots of potential at the upper-division levels.

19. College should be less expensive argument
Bill Gates, Rick Perry argument
KhanAcademy.org = a great concept, but short & medium-term practical implementation seems to require a great deal of judgment at the university level.
Short-term savings don’t simply ‘materialize’ by leveraging current resources.
Some serious deployment issues

20. College is just fine argument
It’s not
61% of our sample work, and 39% work more than 20 hours per week.
Faculty and students feel overwhelmed
From a pseudo-novice perspective, a clear explanation of exactly how technology can help very beneficial.

21. THANK YOU