1. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Does Technology Contribute to Learning?: I’d Like to Believe You, But…. Academy of Distinguished Teachers Fall Retreat 2007 Billie Wahlstrom, Vice Provost

2. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology You Say Tomato “Traditionalists hold face to face as the gold standard. Innovators hold that technology-mediated education can improve learning outcomes” (p. 1). Source: “If There Is No Significant Difference, Why Should We Care?”

3. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology No Significant Difference Phenomenon In 1999, Thomas L. Russell wrote "The No Significant Difference Phenomenon." The book was a fully indexed, comprehensive research bibliography of 355 research reports, summaries and papers that document no significant differences in student outcomes between alternate modes of education delivery.

4. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology WCET Collects Data WCET—the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications—a “membership-supported organization open to providers and users of educational technologies” whose mission is to promote and advance the effective use of technology in higher education.”

5. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Significant Differences WCET’s website includes studies which do document significant differences in student outcomes based on the mode of education delivery. Both types of entries may be searched. So, what’s the evidence? Source:

6. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Where Are We Now? TEL courses show great variability in student learning outcomes. Looking at studies of e-learning and f-2-f learning as a whole, we would be hard- pressed to see a difference. Nevertheless, evidence of tremendous positive effects exists in outcomes in many studies, and those are the ones we need to emulate and research.

7. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Moving Forward First, we need to ask, “ a difference in what?” “Whether or not technology makes a difference depends on how it is used.” – Are we talking about increased opportunities for students—accessibility? – Are we talking about active learning, trying by doing? – Are we talking about increased interaction with others? Source: “The Myth of No Significant Difference,” pp. 14-15

8. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Strategic Questions Do we think of technology as a solution in itself or as a means to an end? Do we assume that using technology is an either/or proposition? Have we identified those processes and those activities we want to improve and looked at how technology can facilitate those actions? Are doing the same things with technology, or are we taking advantage of the unique capabilities of technology and redesigning our activities? Source: “The Myth of No Significant Difference,” pp. 14-15.

9. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology What Works? Systematic instructional design of the type used in the OT proof of concept shown yesterday Active learning with opportunities for team work, collaboration, and communication (f-2f and online)—e.g., wikis, blogs, the OT café. Instructor involvement in the delivery of the course; the presence of a “live” instructor—e.g., UMConnect, IM, and f-2-f Hybrid models

10. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Maximize World-Class Technology to Serve & Delight Studies suggest that outcomes are getting better because – Technologies are put in the service of pedagogy and are better in their own right – We’ve had more practice teaching & learning this way – Much better metrics (e.g., dentistry)

11. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Translating Learning Research into Practice Both assessment and neuroscience tell us how and to what extent technology can improve teaching Question: How can we translate research into something that faculty can use easily?

12. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Works Cited—1 2006-2016 Map of Future Forces Affecting Education, prepared for KnowledgeWorks Foundation by the Institute for the Future. “Active Learning and Technology: Designing for Faculty, Students, and Institutions.” Anne Moore, Shelli Fowler, and C. Edward Watson, Educause Review, September/October 2007. pp. 43-76. ECAR studies for 2004 and 2005. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research “Faculty 2.0.” Joel Hartman, Charles Dziuban, and James Brophy- Ellison.” Educause Review, September/October 2007. pp. 62-76. “If There Is No Significant Difference, Why Should We Care? Sharmila Basu Conger. The Journal of Educators Online, Volume 2, Number 2, July 2005. p. 1.

13. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Works Cited—2 “Is Technology-Enhanced Learning Effective? Recent Research and the ‘No Significant Difference’ Hypothesis.” J.D. Walker. DMC. “The Myth About No Significant Difference.” Diana Oblinger and Brian L. Hawkins. Educause Review, November/Dece3mber 2006. pp. 14-15. “Technology in Support of Learning on the Twin Cities Campus,” Robert B. Kvavik. Prepared for the Academic Health Center. “Top-Ten Teaching and Learning Issues, 2007.” Educause Quarterly, Number 3 2007. pp. 15-21.

14. Distributed Education & Instructional Technology Acknowledgements Janet Shanedling, Ph.D., Director, AHC Learning Commons, AHC Office of Education, provided her slides from the 2007 CAHP briefing on the Learning Platform and the OT student perspective.