Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
MCNY DISTANCE LEARNING (DL) CASE STUDY
Evidence of Serving Predominantly Black Minority Students in Online Classes
Dr. Tilokie Depoo, Dean & Professor of Management, Director of E-Learning
Ms. Davinder Kaur, Undergraduate Program Coordinator & Adjunct Faculty
School for Business, Metropolitan College of New York
Presented at ACBSP Region 1 Conference San Juan, Puerto RicoOctober 9-11, 2013
Presented by
Objectives of Presentation
1. Implementation of DL programs2. Present findings of student
engagement, academic progress and student satisfaction at MCNY, a predominantly minority-serving institution
3. Addressing the digital divide
Presentation Outline
• School for Business– Unique curricula– Purpose-Centered Education & Constructive Action
• Literature Review• Planning and Implementation distance learning (DL)
course offerings• Presentation of Research Findings
– Satisfaction measured through registrations– Passing and withdrawal rates as indicators of growth– Overall student satisfaction
• Results &Conclusions • Q & A
Scho
ol fo
r Bus
ines
sSchool for Business
Associate of Sc ienceBachelors in Business Administrati on
BBA in Healthcare Systems ManagementMBA General Management
MBA Financia l ServicesMBA Media Management
School for Human Services
School for Public Affairs & Administration
Metropolitan College of New York
Total Student Enrollment: 1287 (Office of Institutional Research)
Metropolitan College of New York
o Student Characteristics o Ethnicitieso Learning cultureo Attitude to technologyoWorking Adults
o Educational Philosophyo Uniqueness of Purpose-Centered Educationo Strength of the Cohort Model
Student Demographics
72%
21%
3% 4%
RaceBlackHispanicWhiteNon-resident Alien
Purpose-Centered Education & Constructive Action
PURPOSE
VALUES/ETHICS
SELF/OTHERS
SYSTEMS
SKILLS
CLASSROOM
FIELD COMPONENT
Constructive Action PURPOSE 1
Constructi
ve Actio
n
• Developing Career Goals
Values &
Ethics
• Critical Thinking & Writing
Self &
Others
• Human Biology
Systems
• Principles of Business
Skills
• Computer Applications
Purp
ose
4Pu
rpos
e 3
Purp
ose
2
Learning through the application of knowledge
Literature Review
Need for DL Offerings• Increased enrollment in colleges of minority students• Rise of online course offerings (Conway, 2013)
• Student Needs (Howell, n.d.)
– Flexibility & options– Growing population– Growth of minority learners
• 30% of students in higher education take at least one course online (Allen, 2010)
– Continued and projected growth in online enrollments
Literature Review
Minority Students in Higher Education• Significant increase of African-American
students (Howell, n.d.)
• “College enrollments in the fall of 2008 increased at rates not yet seen in the past 40 years, led by growth in community colleges, increased enrollment of minority students and the rise of online classes” (Conway, 2013, pg. 1)
Literature Review
Minority Students Completion Rates• Focus on disparities in minority populations (Fairlie,
2007)
– Digital divide with minority (African-American) students (Conway, 2013)
– African American students fared more poorly in online courses (Lederman, 2013)
• Not accounted for was quality of the online courses• Conflicting findings show that that every group fared
less well in an online environment (Lederman, 2013)
DL Implementation
• Fully DL Courses– Launched spring 2010 term
• Contributing Factors:– Faculty Committee– Course Identification– Course Fit for DL delivery– Transitioning to revised curriculum– Purpose-Centered Education & Consistency
Challenges
Challenges:– Institutional support– No prior program-level DL courses offered– College perceptions of students skills– Ensure support for students, faculty & staff– Transition to new curriculum and LMS (Moodle)
Development Strategy
• Consistency across courses• Syllabi minimal standards • Standardization of course layout • Quality Assurance – Quality Matters Rubric
Standards
Quality Assurance
Quality Matters Rubric Standards 2011-2013*– Course Overview and Introduction– Learning Objectives– Assessment and Measurement– Resources and Materials– Learner Engagement– Course Technology– Learner Support– Accessibility*The Quality Matters
Research Methods
• Analysis of Enrollment Data– Measure satisfaction & growth
• Analysis of Passing Rates– Measure academic performance
• Feedback Surveys– Measure student satisfaction
Three Major Trends
1. Enrollment2. Passing & Withdrawal Rates3. Student Satisfaction
Analysis of Enrollment DataSpring 2010 – Spring 2013
National trends in Distance Learning
•HBCU grad rates=36%,
•national average for Afro-Americans =below 45%
•Recent report: online and incomplete connection, community colleges
Sp '10 Su '10 Fa '10 Sp '11 Su '11 Fa '11 Sp '12 Su '12 Fa '12 Sp '13 % Change
Registrations 120 217 280 277 254 364 423 458 532 524 337%
Unique Student Count 79 128 164 172 159 209 236 250 353 343 334%
Dropped Courses 64 45 66 72 43 84 96 80 186 161 152%
Unique Dropped Courses 37 29 46 51 32 68 77 62 142 127 243%
Sprin
g 2010
Summer 2
010
Fall 2
010
Sprin
g 2011
Summer 2
011
Fall 2
011
Sprin
g 2012
Summer 2
012
Fall 2
012
Sprin
g 2013
Summer 2
0130
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
79
128164
208187
232
287 302
353 343
286
Total Enrollment “DIST” CoursesSpring 2010 – Summer 2013
Unduplicated Students Linear (Unduplicated Students)
Sprin
g 2010
Summer 2
010
Fall 2
010
Sprin
g 2011
Summer 2
011
Fall 2
011
Sprin
g 2012
Summer 2
012
Fall 2
012
Sprin
g 2013
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
86
151 163 158 153
210
278256
359 344
Total Undergraduate Enrollment “DIST” CoursesSpring 2010 – Spring 2013
Unduplicated Students Linear (Unduplicated Students)
0
50
100
150
200
250
34
66
117 119101
154 145
202
173 180
Total Graduate Enrollment “DIST” CoursesSpring 2010 – Spring 2013
Unduplicated Students Linear (Unduplicated Students)
Spring 2010 Summer 2010
Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Summer 2011
Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013
Registrations 120 217 280 316 278 367 460 532 524
Unduplicated Student Count
79 128 164 208 187 232 287 353 343
Dropped Cour-ses
64 45 66 66 55 86 106 186 161
Unduplicated 37 29 46 51 39 72 85 142 127
50
150
250
350
450
550
Enrollment “DIST” CoursesSpring 2010 - Spring 2013
Registrations
Unduplicated Student Count
Dropped Courses
Unduplicated
Spring 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013
Registrations 86 158 278 344
Unduplicated Student Count 51 92 151 218
Dropped Courses 55 50 58 79
Unduplicated 30 34 44 60
25
75
125
175
225
275
325
86
158
278
344
51
92
151
218
55 50 5879
30 34 4460
Total Undergrad Enrollment “DIST” CoursesSpring 2011-Spring 2013
Registrations Unduplicated Student Count Dropped Courses Unduplicated
Spring 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013
Registrations 34 119 145 180
Unduplicated Student Count 28 80 85 125
Dropped Courses 9 22 38 82
Unduplicated 7 17 33 67
1030507090
110130150170
34
119
145
180
28
80 85
125
922
38
82
717
33
67
Total Graduate Enrollment “DIST” CoursesSpring 2011 – Spring 2013
Registrations Unduplicated Student Count Dropped Courses Unduplicated
Distance Courses Onsite Courses
2010 53.0% 57.7%
2011 62.0% 63.6%
2012 75.2% 75.1%
5.0%
15.0%
25.0%
35.0%
45.0%
55.0%
65.0%
75.0%
53.0%57.7%
62.0% 63.6%
75.2% 75.1%
Overall Passing Rates: 2010 – 2011 (fall)
201020112012
Distance Un-dergrad
Onsite Unde-grad
Distance Grad Onsite Grad
2010 45.9% 58.2% 73.0% 80.0%
2011 54.1% 60.8% 35.2% 74.4%
2012 56.1% 61.5% 57.4% 83.8%
5.0%15.0%25.0%35.0%45.0%55.0%65.0%75.0%85.0%
45.9%
58.2%
73.0%80.0%
54.1%60.8%
35.2%
74.4%
56.1%61.5%
57.4%
83.8%
Overall Passing Rates: Same Online & Onsite Courses
201020112012
Undergraduate Graduate
Onsite 65.5% 56.3%
Distance 63.4% 84.6%
5.0%
25.0%
45.0%
65.0%
85.0% 65.5%56.3%
63.4%
84.6%
Average Passing Rates: Undergraduate and Graduate Courses 2010 – 2012 (Fall)
Onsite Distance
Distance Onsite
Fall 2012 19% 15%
Fall 2011 18% 13%
Fall 2010 14% 14%
1%3%5%7%9%
11%13%15%17%19%
19%
15%
18%
13%14% 14%
Passing Rates: Fall 2010 vs. Fall 2012
Fall 2012Fall 2011Fall 2010
Distance Un-dergrad
Onsite Unde-grad
Distance Grad Onsite Grad
2010 22.5% 25.9% 12.2% 20.0%
2011 20.1% 20.8% 8.8% 20.8%
2012 19.2% 19.4% 31.4% 16.3%
2.5%
7.5%
12.5%
17.5%
22.5%
27.5%
32.5%
22.5%
25.9%
12.2%
20.0%20.1% 20.8%
8.8%
20.8%19.2% 19.4%
31.4%
16.3%
Overall Withdrawal Rates:Same Online & Onsite Courses
201020112012
Spr 2010 Sum 2010 Fall 2010 Spr 2011 Sum 2011 Fall 2011 Spr 2012 Sum 2012 Fall 20121.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
3.65
3.48
3.13
3.52 3.483.49
2.86
3.70
3.35
2.953.13 3.06
3.26 3.25
3.06
2.69
3.44
3.21
Student Satisfaction by SemesterSpring 2010 –Fall 2012
Did the course meet your expectations of a Distance Learning course?
How did this course comapre to other similar courses you have taken in traditional classroom settings?
ResultsEnrollment in DL Courses
1. Steady increase in national trend 2. Continued and project overall growth of minority learners online3. Consistent with Conway, 2013
Passing Rates (DL versus Onsite)4. Relatively even when compared to onsite courses5. Inconsistent with findings suggesting Black student’s grades falling significantly
more in online courses (Lederman, 2013)
Withdrawal Rates (DL versus Onsite)6. No significant deviation between DL and onsite courses 7. Lower withdrawal rates for quantitative courses vs. non-quantitative courses
Overall Student Satisfaction8. Relatively positive 9. As indicated by expectations and comparison to onsite courses
Conclusions
1. Minority students are receptive and adaptive to online (DL) courses
2. There is no significant differences in withdrawal rates (onsite vs. online courses)
3. Students are performing similar to onsite courses (passing rates)
4. Students are satisfied with DL courses
ReferencesAllen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: online education in the united states, 2010.
Conway, K., Wladis, C., & Hachey, A. (2013). Minority student access in the online environment. (Master's thesis, Borough of Manhattan Community College)Retrieved from http://www.hets.org/journal/articles/68-minority- student-access-in-the-online-environment
Fairlie, R. (2007, Octorber 24). Explaining differences in access to home computers and the internet: A comparison of latino groups to other ethnic and racial groups. Retrieved from http://people.ucsc.edu/~rfairlie/papers/published/ecr 2007 - latino technology.pdf
Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (n.d.). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: an informed foundation for strategic planning.
Lederman, D. (2013, February 25). Study finds some groups fare worse than others in online courses. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com
