1. Evaluation of On-Line Learning on Campus http://moby.ucdavis.edu/HRM/IEEE00.htm http://moby.ucdavis.edu/HRM/IEEE00.ppt Harry R. Matthews Professor and Director Instructional Technology & Digital Media Center University of California at Davis

2. Authors Harry R. Matthews, Professor – Director, Instructional Technology & Digital Media Center Barbara Sommer – Teaching Resources Center Michael Maher – Professor, Graduate School of Management Curt Acredolo – Research Professor, Human & Community Development Arnold Ho, Undergraduate in Psychology Richard Falk, Professor.

3. Hypothesis Delivery of course content on-line can be cost-effective improve learning be acceptable to students be acceptable to faculty.

4. Why? Need to accommodate a rapidly growing student population.

5. The Strategy Create on-line content for – 10 – large – undergraduate – general education courses Students choose the on-line or in-person content Compare – costs – learning – acceptability.

6. Course names Food Science & Mythology Agricultural Labor General Biology Environmental Law Introduction to Computing Computers in Agriculture Anthropology Statistics Introduction to Wine-making Asian Art History.

7. Some Variables Students choose on-line course Appropriate for our question Variable use of on-line/in-person content Treat as a continuous variable Variable on-line presentation From mainly text to rich multiple media Costs depend on prior materials.

8. Developing On-Line Content — one strategy Videotape PowerPoint-based lectures Digitize and Transcribe sound (voice) Convert PowerPoint to JPEG or Flash Use Flash Generator – major advance Make small sound files aligned with the slide transitions Bookmark the text to correspond with the slide transitions Assemble in database.

9. Results from the pilot studies 5 year study of BCM 410A: lectures offered in-person in years 1, 2, and 5 on-line in years 3 and 4 Aim was to improve higher-order thinking skills: shift instructor contact-time from lecture to discussion sections.

10. Improved grades in on-line classes 21%–26% A grades during in-person lecture years 35%–55% A grades in on-line years.

11. Student views of on-line content textual analysis of a free-response questionnaire.

12. Value for studying: virtual lectures

13. Value for studying: textbook

14. BIS 10 – General Biology – Exam data showed no significant difference in student learning between the in-person and on-line course BIS 10 was mainly text-based – no change in learning BCM410A was multiple media with integrated tools – improvement in learning Is difference in learning, if significant, due to the nature of the on-line content? What about the quality of the learning? Results from the pilot studies

15. Evaluation of Learning Quantitative – test scores Qualitative – Student perception – Analysis of tests assign questions to Bloom’s taxonomy of levels of learning Bloom’s taxonomy – Determine learning style Kolb form. Kolb form

16. Cost Analysis Pre-requisite for scalability Differential Cost Analysis Faculty time Assistance for faculty Infrastructure (buildings, network) Student support Costs associated with impacted courses.

17. Cost Analysis Major component of cost is instructor time – Direct time: e.g., planning and delivering the course – Indirect time: e.g. attending seminars.

18. Instructor time sheet W eb form completed daily Email reminder http://moby.ucdavis.edu/Mellon/timesheet.cfm ?Name=Falk http://moby.ucdavis.edu/Mellon/timesheet.cfm ?Name=Falk

19. Conclusion “The Jury is IN. On-line learning works! — David Brown, Jan. 2000 Does the use of multiple media types affect learning? In what situations? Is on-line learning cost-effective? Under what circumstances? Where and to what extent should UC Davis use on-line content delivery?

20. Evaluation of On-Line Learning on Campus http://moby.ucdavis.edu/HRM/IEEE00.htm http://moby.ucdavis.edu/HRM/IEEE00.ppt