1. Karen Swan Kent State University Research Center for Educational Technology Assessing the Impact of Technology on Learning

2. The Great Media Debate Kozma VS Clark

3. What is the question?

4. outcomes processes inputs

5. outcomes processesinputs satisfaction retention success achievement proficiencies performance

6. Understanding By Design, Wiggins & McTighe enduring understandings important to know & do worth being familiar with achievement

7. outcomes processesinputs satisfaction retention success achievement proficiencies performance

8. outcomes processesinputs learner characteristics design learning resources professional development

9. learner characteristics F2F, E, M 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 O femalesmalesA&SBA & Hosp. mgmt F2FE, M, OE, MF2F Overall factors influencing success (Dziuban & Moskal, 2006)

10. learner characteristics reactive behavior patterns (Long-Dziuban frame) aggressivepassive independent high energy, action-oriented, not concerned with approval, speaks out freely, gets into confrontational situations low energy, not concerned with approval, prefers to work alone, resists pressure from authority, non-communicative dependent high energy, action-oriented, concerned with approval, rarely expresses negative feelings, performs at or above ability Low energy, concerned with approval, highly sensitive to the feelings of others, compliant and pleasing

11. outcomes processesinputs learner characteristics design learning resources professional development

12. design http://www.esac.org/fdi/rubric/finalsurvey/demorubric.asp http://www.tltgroup.org/

13. outcomes processesinputs learner characteristics course design learning resources professional development

14. learning ubiquitous technologies outcomes processesinputs use representation s conceptualization s learning UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)

15. multiple representations across a wide range of media UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)

16. percentage of time spent in: regular classroom SBCAC individual12.968.52 small groups31.3158.73 large groups7.780.00 whole class47.9532.75 GROUP SIZE UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)

17. CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING average rating across classes high ability10 medium ability9.4 low ability8.5 special needs9.3 UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)

18. TEACHING PRESENCE PRESENC E SOCIALCOGNITIVE PRESENC E EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE Community of Inquiry Model (Garrison, 2006) outcomes processesinputs

19. Teaching Presence Design & Organization 1. The instructor clearly communicated important course topics. 2. The instructor clearly communicated important course goals. 3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities. 4. The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities. Facilitation 5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn. 6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking. 7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue. 8. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn. 9. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course. 10.Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants.

20. Direct Instruction 11. The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn. 12. The instructor provided feedback helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses. 13.The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion. Social Presence Affective Expression 14.Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course. 15.I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants. 16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction. Open Communication 17.I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium. 18.I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions. 19.I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.

21. Group Cohesion 20.I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust. 21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants. 22.Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration. Cognitive Presence Triggering Event 23. Problems posed increased my interest in course issues. 24. Course activities piqued my curiosity. 25.I felt motivated to explore content related questions. Exploration 26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course. 27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content related questions. 28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives.

22. Integration 29. Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course activities. 30. Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions. 31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class. Resolution 32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course. 33. I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice. 34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities.

23. outcomes processesinputs pedagogy interactions assessment

24. course design course assignments instructor feedback instructor instructor /discussion affect learning content analysis– “additional comments:” (Swan, Schenker, Lin, Shea & Aviv, 2006) pedagogy

25. rprprprp design & organization.64 <.01.59 <.01.64 <.01.60 <.01 facilitating discourse.64 <.01.58 <.01.61 <.01.58 <.01 direct instruction.64 <.01.61 <.01.63 <.01.61 <.01 SUMMER 2002 (n=1140) SPRING 2003 (n=6088) satisfactionper. learn. teaching presence (Shea, et al., 2003, 2004) satisfactionper. learn. pedagogy

26. outcomes processesinputs pedagogy interactions assessment

27. interactions interactivity & generations (Hartman,Moskal & Dziuban, 2005)

28. social software commenting tools (Track Changes, audio/ video feedback) threaded discussion, chat, email whiteboards / application sharing (Elluminate, Wimba, Learnlinc) blogs wikis distributed classification systems (Digg, Plum, Flickr YouTube) interactions

29. outcomes processesinputs pedagogy interactions assessment

30. ~criteriacriteria total posts 40.5558.30 total threads 15.5018.80 posts/thread 1.652.04 thread depth 0.710.98 greatest depth 1.902.70 ~criteriacriteria initial posts/stud 0.830.82 initial post length 147.19145.40 responses/stud** 1.521.96 response length* 68.7370.12 messages read** 11.8323.05 *significant at p>.05; **significant at p>.01 assessment of online discussion (Schenker, Swan, Arnold & Kuo, 2006)

31. enduring understandings important to know & do worth being familiar with Assessment Types informal checks observation/dialogue quizzes/tests academic prompts performance task/project assessment Understanding By Design, Wiggins & McTighe

32. assessment: rubrics discussion postings rubrics (Pelz, 2004)

33. points0 points1/2 point1 point article summaryno summary of articleweak summary of article, misses some major points clear summary of article, addresses all major points covered in article addresses questions poseddoesn't address any of the questions addresses only some questions or some questions superficially addresses all questions well &/or adds original critique links to module content, other lit. &/or personal experiences doesn't link to either module or own experience weak links to module &/or own experience strong links to module topics &/or own experience points0 points1/2 point1 point objectivesobjectives neither state what students will learn nor match evaluation rubrics weak objectives (don't state what students will learn or don't match rubrics) objectives clearly state what students will learn from the lesson and are linked to evaluation assessmentno rubricsrubrics don't match objectives &/or don't give skill levels w/in categories rubrics give specific descriptions of skill levels w/in categories and categories match objectives scope and sequence poorly structured lesson inappropriate for grade level, curriculum & objectives weak lesson that doesn't clearly address objectives. well structured lesson that fits curriculum and grade level and clearly addresses objectives activitiesno activitiesweak links between activities, lesson and curriculum excellent activities encouraging active learning, & transfer of learning to other areas of curriculum lesson plan rubrics article critique rubrics assessment: rubrics

34. AAHE ePortfolio clearinghouse http://ctl.du.edu/portfolioclearinghouse/ http://ctl.du.edu/portfolioclearinghouse/ collection of student work providing evidence of learning linked to learning goals demonstrating progress over time multiple media include reflections on works programmatic, across courses assessment: e-portfolios

35. assessment: student response systems self-assessment as well as data collection, engagement, interactivity

36. outcomes processes inputs

37. Karen Swan Kent State University kswan@kent.edu www.rcet.org Research Center for Educational Technology