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 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

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

5. Student Success

6. Success rates by modality Spring 01 through Spring 03 F2F MTotal N= 139,444 students W Percent

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

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

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

10. A segment model for success 85.9% n=11,286 85.8% n=6,460 91.5% n=2,079 72.7% n=378 86.7% n=2,369 86.5% n=5,639 74.8% n=821 94.1% n=1,036 89.1% n=1,043 64.7% n=148 79.6% n=230 88.4% n=3,263 84.1% n=2,376 68.9% n=298 78.5% 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

11. Student Satisfaction

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

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. 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 (1946- 1964) Live to work Generally optimistic Influence on policy & products 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. The Digital Generation 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

18. The Digital Generation: Challenges 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

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

20. Better able to integrate technology into their learning Percent 67% 48% 34% 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 Percent 51% 37% 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 Percent 83% 81% 75% 93% 91% 90% 96% 94% 95%

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

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. A description of Long behavior types 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

28. A description of Long behavior traits 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

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

30. Changed Approach to Learning in Online Class by Long Type Aggressive Independent n=120 40% 34% 37% 25% 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% 32% 0% 50% Aggressive Independent Passive Independent Aggressive Dependent Passive Dependent N=55

32. Faculty Results

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

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

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

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

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

38. Relationships of faculty satisfaction with class interaction and workload (TAU-b) WM (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. Facilitation of learning Communication of ideas Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Then... The probability of an overall rating of Excellent =.93 & The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00 If... A decision rule based on student evaluation responses and the probability of faculty receiving an overall rating of Excellent

41. A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 OverallIf Rule 1 College% Excellent% Excellent Arts & Sciences41.692.4 Business34.990.9 Education56.894.8 Engineering36.291.3 H&PA46.193.9 (N=441,758) (N=147,544)

42. A comparison of excellent ratings by course modality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 F2F42.092.2 E44.092.3 M40.692.0 W55.492.7 ITV20.986.7 CourseOverallIf Rule 1 Modality % Excellent % Excellent 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/