Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges · Technology-Enhanced Learning:...

Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges

Chuck DziubanPatsy Moskal

University of Central Florida

The University of Central Florida

500,000

700,000

900,000

1,100,000

1,300,000

1,500,000

1,700,000

1995-96 2000-01 2005-06 2010-11

Sources of UCF SCH Growth

A value-added model of technology-enhanced learning

TechnologyAugmented

(E)

Faculty Initiative Institutional Initiative

Blended(M)

FullyOnline

(W)Access and

TransformationEnhancement Engagement

Learning Management

Systems

Web 2.0

Lecture Capture

Shirky, C. (2009)

Some Interesting Models

Web 2.0 Blending

Public RelationsRobert French

Auburn University

New Media BlendingGardner Campbell

Virginia Tech

Laureate International Universities Network

An Evaluation Plan

Evidence of ImpactStudents Faculty

Learning preferences

SuccessSatisfaction

DemographicsRetention

Blended Academic Life

Blended Theater

Blended Assessment

Blended WritingInformation

fluencyGenerations

Personal geographies

Predictive models Case narratives

Blended Algebra

Blended PersonaWeb 2.0

Success

Success rates by modality Spring 2009 through Summer 2010

87 91 87 88 918895 91 91 94

88 88 86 88 88

0102030405060708090

100

Perc

ent

Spring 09 Summer 09 Fall 09 Spring 10 Summer 10

F2F(n=618,899)

Blended(n=39,021)

Fully Online(n=109,421)

Predicting Success and Withdrawal

Prediction DomainsDomains Dependent

Demographics

Ability

AcademicPerformance

Success &Withdrawal

Domain Prediction for Success in Online Learning (n range 32,000- 72,000)

Domains Dependent

Successr2 = .01

Ethnicity Age, Gender,

Etc.

SAT/ACT

GPA

Domain Prediction for Withdrawal in Online Learning (n range 33,000- 73,000)

Domains Dependent

Withdrawalr2 = .01

Ethnicity Age, Gender,

Etc.

SAT/ACT

GPA

Student Satisfaction

Satisfaction with fully online courses

44 47

5 3 10

102030405060708090

100

Verysatisfied

Satisfied Neither Unsatisfied Veryunsatisfied

Perc

ent

(n=1197)

Satisfaction with blended courses

35

53

93 1

0102030405060708090

100

Verysatisfied

Satisfied Neither Unsatisfied Veryunsatisfied

Perc

ent

(n=811)

Student Satisfaction with Technology Enhanced Learning

• Convenience

• Reduced Logistic Demands

• Increased Learning Flexibility

• Technology Enhanced Learning

Reduced OpportunityCosts for Education

Less Positives with Technology Enhanced Learning

• Reduced Face-to-Face Time

• Technology Problems

• Reduced Instructor Assistance

• Overwhelming

• Increased Workload

Increased OpportunityCosts for Education

Tolstoy and Student Satisfaction

Satisfaction Components

Ambivalence

Enriched Learning Environment

Role Expectation(Rules of Engagement)

CommitmentAmbiguity

Engagement

LearningLatitude

Generations

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

Student Generations

311

86

0102030405060708090

100

Perc

ent

Boomers1946-1964

Gen X1965-1980

Millennial1981-1994

(n=1217)

11

55

33

10

102030405060708090

100

Perc

ent

Faculty Generations

Boomers1946-1964

Gen X1965-1980

Millennial1981-1994

(n=689)

MaturePrior to 1946

Non-ambivalent satisfaction with fully online courses

6556

42

0102030405060708090

100

Perc

ent

Gen X1965-1980

Boomers 1946-1964

Millennial1981-1994

(n=526)

DisruptiveInnovation!

• There’s one in YOUR future!!

• And another one right behind it!

Wayne Hodgins, 2007

Wikipedia

Student Ratings

Facilitation of learning

Communication of ideas

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Then...The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .97 &

The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00

If...

A decision rule for the probability of faculty member receiving an overall rating of Excellent

Respect and concern for students

n=1,280,890

Then...The probability of an overall rating of Poor = .90 &

The probability of an overall rating of Very Good or Excellent =.00

If...

A decision rule for the probability of faculty member receiving an overall rating of Poor

Facilitation of learning

Communication of ideas

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Respect and concern for students

n=1,280,890

A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1

Overall If Rule 1College % Excellent % Excellent

Education 58.6 97.9Molecular & Microbiology 49.9 97.6Health & Public Affairs 49.8 97.6Arts & Humanities 49.1 96.7Sciences 44.5 96.8Hospitality Management 44.1 96.6Business Administration 39.5 96.9Engineering 39.0 96.8

n=1,280,890

A comparison of excellent ratings by coursemodality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1

Blended 48.9 97.2Online 47.6 97.3Enhanced 46.8 97.5F2F 45.7 97.2

Course Overall If Rule 1Modality % Excellent % Excellent

n=1,171,664

And the Challenges…Opportunities Abound

“I have an opportunity for you”Academic Integrity

Assessment models and more authentic

assessment

Adrift in Academia

Information Fluency and Information

Toxicity

Alone Together

Proofiness

Multitasking or Partial Attention

Cognitive Abundance

or The

Shallows?

Dangerous Ideas

Explosive Growth

Technology-Enhanced Learning and Black Swans

Taleb: The Black Swan

Unpredicted9/11

Google

Harry Potter

Y2KUndetectable

Outliers

Back-Filled Narrative

Monumental Impact

Retrospective Prediction

Market crash

Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness

For more information contact:

Dr. Chuck Dziuban(407) 823-5478

Charles.Dziuban@ucf.edu

Dr. Patsy Moskal(407) 823-0283

Patsy.Moskal@ucf.edu

http://rite.ucf.eduhttp://www.if.ucf.edu/