Technology Enhanced Education: Opportunities and Challenges

1. Technology Enhanced Education: Opportunities and Challenges Chuck Dziuban Patsy Moskal University of Central Florida

2. The University of Central Florida

3. A value-added model of technology-enhanced learning Learning Management Systems Fully Online (W) Technology Augmented (E) Blended (M) Access and Transformation Lecture Capture Engagement Enhancement FacultyInitiative Institutional Initiative Web 2.0

4. Technology Enhanced Learning as a Boundary Object Evaluators Journalists Presidents Students Vice Provosts Faculty TEL Deans Provosts CIOs Department Chairs Librarians InstructionalDesigners

5. Shirky, C. (2009)

6. An Evaluation Plan

7. Distributed Learning Impact Evaluation Faculty Students Online programs Success Writing project model Satisfaction Demographic profiles Retention Higher order evaluation models Reactive behavior patterns Strategies for success Theater Student evaluation of instruction Information fluency Generational comparisons Large online classes

8. Student Success

9. Online and Blended Registrations Fully Online Courses Blended Learning Courses n

10. Learning Return on Investment • 67% more efficient classroom use • Saved $6.2 million in construction costs • Saved $316,000 in space maintenance costs Joel Hartman, 2010

11. Success rates by modalitySpring 01 through Spring 03 F2F Total N= 139,444 students Blended Fully Online Percent

12. A Decision Tree for Success Overall 85.9% n=11,286 Arts & Sciences, Business Admin., Hospitality Mgmt. Health & Pub. Affairs Engineering Education 85.8% n=6,460 72.7% n=378 91.5% n=2,079 86.7% n=2,369 F2F, E, M W F2F E, M, W F2F E, M 89.1% n=1,043 79.6% n=230 94.1% n=1,036 64.7% n=148 74.8% n=821 86.5% n=5,639 females males A&S BA & Hosp. mgmt E=Enhanced M=Blended W=Online 84.1% n=2,376 78.5% n=526 88.4% n=3,263 68.9% n=298

13. Where have all the face-to-face courses gone?

14. Overall success rates by modality Blended (N=49,434) Online (N=102,755) Percent

15. Success rates by modality for Sciences Blended (N= 6,731) Online (N= 22,301) Percent

16. Success rates by modality for Health & Public Affairs Blended (N= 7,716) Online (N= 42,366) Percent

17. Success rates by modality for Education (N= 7,479) Blended Online (N=10,078) Percent

18. Predictors

19. Prediction Domains Domains Dependent Demographics Success & Withdrawal Ability Academic Performance

20. Relationship of online success and withdrawal with demographics Success (r2 = .02) Withdrawal (r2 = .01) N range = 69,000 – 133,000

21. Relationship of online success and withdrawal with SAT and ACT scores Success (r2 = .01) Withdrawal (r2 = .01) N range = 69,000 – 133,000

22. Relationship of Online Success and Withdrawal with GPA Success (r2 = 0.37) Withdrawal (r2 = .04) N range = 69,000 – 133,000

23. Student Satisfaction

24. Student satisfaction in fully online and blended courses Fully online (N = 1,526) Blended (N = 485) 44% 41% 39% Percent 38% 11% 9% 9% 5% 3% 1% Very Satisfied Neutral Very Unsatisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied

25. Student satisfaction with online learning • Convenience • Reduced Logistic Demands • Increased Learning Flexibility • Technology Enhanced Learning Reduced Opportunity Costs for Education

26. Students’ problems with online learning • Reduced Face-to-Face Time • Technology Problems • Reduced Instructor Assistance • Overwhelming • Increased Workload Increased Opportunity Costs for Education

27. The Ambivalence Dimension Ambivalence Satisfaction Dissatisfaction

28. Sources of Ambivalence Change Complexity ? Incompleteness Ambiguity Pluralism Uncertainty

29. Derived Model Yields 8 Dimensions of Student Perception of ALN Ambiguity Ambivalence Information Fluency Engagement Commitment Responsiveness Expectations

30. Web 2.0

31. DisruptiveInnovation! There’s one in YOUR future!! And another one right behind it! Wayne Hodgins, 2007

32. Web 2.0 Audio Facebook Semantic Web Wikis SlideShare Ajax Digg Technorati Zude Del.ico.us Skype YouTube Pandora tagging XHTML Flickr Blogs Wikipedia RSS Social Networking Podcasting MySpace Video Folksonomy

33. The Generations

34. 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

35. Net Generation: Marc Prensky – Learning Preferences Multitasking Twitch Speed Active Learning Graphics Connections Technology is my Friend Gaming and Fantasy

36. Net Generation: Howe and Strauss – Lifestyle Sheltered Conventional Confident Special Team Oriented Achievement Pressure

37. Tabscott: Net Generation Norms freedom scrutinize personalize customize speed play collaborate integrity

38. Net Generation: Twenge (Generation Me) – Lifestyle Self Focused Artificial Self Esteem Cynical Anything is Possible (unrealistic) Yeah Right Life by Lottery

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

40. Because of the web I changed my approach to learning (non ambivalent) 51% Percent 37% 23% Boomer 1946-1964 n=328 Generation X 1965-1980 n=815 Millennial 1981-1994 n=346

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

42. Students’ description of whether they learn better alone or with others Baby Boomer p= .000 Gen-X Millennial n= 1,149

43. Student and faculty generations in blended and online learning Faculty Student Mature 1% Millennial 1% Baby Boomer 6% Mature 11% Gen X 33% Gen X 11% Baby Boomer 55% Millennial 84% N=689 N=26,823

44. Student Ratings

45. A decision rule for the probability of faculty member receiving an overall rating of Excellent (n=1,280,890) If... Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Facilitation of learning Communication of ideas Respect and concern for students Then... The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .97 & The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00

46. A decision rule for the probability of faculty member receiving an overall rating of Poor (n=1,280,890) If... Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Facilitation of learning Communication of ideas Respect and concern for students Then... The probability of an overall rating of Poor = .90 & The probability of an overall rating of Very Good or Excellent =.00

47. A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 (n=1,280,890) Overall If Rule 1 College % Excellent % Excellent Education 58.6 97.9 Molecular & Microbiology 49.9 97.6 Health & Public Affairs 49.8 97.6 Arts & Humanities 49.1 96.7 Arts & Sciences 45.1 97.0 Sciences 44.5 96.8 Hospitality Management 44.1 96.6 Business Administration 39.5 96.9 Engineering 39.0 96.8

48. A comparison of excellent ratings by course modality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 (n=1,171,664) Course Overall If Rule 1 Modality % Excellent % Excellent Blended 48.9 97.2 Online 47.6 97.3 Enhanced 46.8 97.5 F2F 45.7 97.2 ITV 34.2 96.6

49. Technology Enhanced Education, Ghost Maps and Black Swans

50. Bone Pickers Sewer Hunters Rag-Gatherers Night Soil Men Pure Finders Dustmen Dredgermen Bunters Mud-Larks Toshers London 1853