Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities and Challenges

Charles D. Dziuban

Patsy D. Moskal

University of Central Florida

The University of Central Florida

Distributed Learning Impact Evaluation

Students Faculty

Reactive behaviorpatterns

SuccessSatisfaction

Demographicprofiles

Retention

Strategies forsuccess

Online programs

Writing project model

Large online classes

Higher orderevaluation models

Student evaluation ofinstruction

Theater

Informationfluency

Generationalcomparisons

A value-added model of technology-enhanced learning

Web-Augmented

(E)

Faculty Initiative Institutional Initiative

Blended(M)

FullyOnline

(W)

Access andTransformationEnhancement Engagement

Student Success

Success rates by modalitySpring 01 through Spring 03

9193

91 90

94

91 9191

97

94

91

97

92 9189

93

9092 92 92 91

75

80

85

90

95

100

Spring 01

Summer01

Fall 01

Spring 02

Summer02

Fall 02

Spring 03

F2FMTotal N= 139,444 studentsW

Per

cent

Success rates by modality for Health & Public Affairs

91

9694 93 92 91 91

96

99 98 98 99 98

95

9294

91 91

95

92 91

74767880828486889092949698

100

Spring 01

Summer01

Fall 01

Spring 02

Summer02

Fall 02

Spring 03

F2FMW

Per

cent

Total N= 26,073 students

Success rates by modality for Arts & Sciences

92 91 92 91

94

91 9190

96

9088

98

87 8787

93 9290

92 93

90

74767880828486889092949698

100

Spring 01

Summer01

Fall 01

Spring 02

Summer02

Fall 02

Spring 03

F2FMW

Per

cent

Total N= 49,460 students

Success rates by modality for Education

9799

96 9698 98 9898 100 99 99 98 98 9897 97

9597 96 96 95

74767880828486889092949698

100

Spring 01

Summer01

Fall 01

Spring 02

Summer02

Fall 02

Spring 03

F2FMW

Per

cent

Total N= 10,822 students

A segment model for success

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

F2F, E, M W

females males A&S BA & Hosp. mgmt

F2F E, M, W E, MF2F

Overall

Student Satisfaction

Student satisfaction in fully online and mixed-mode courses

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

39%Fully online (N = 1,526)Mixed-mode (N = 485)

41%

11% 9%

Very SatisfiedUnsatisfiedSatisfied

Neutral

38%

44%

9%

Very Unsatisfied

3% 5%1%

Student satisfaction with online learning

• Convenience

• Reduced Logistic Demands

• Increased Learning Flexibility

• Technology Enhanced Learning

Reduced OpportunityCosts for Education

Students’ problems with online learning

• Reduced Face-to-Face Time

• Technology Problems

• Reduced Instructor Assistance

• Overwhelming

• Increased Workload

Increased OpportunityCosts for Education

Student 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

The Digital GenerationLearning Style• Twitch Speed

• Parallel Processing

• Graphics First

• Connected

• Active Learning

• Learn by Play

• Learn by Fantasy

• Technology Friendly

Lifestyle• Special

• Sheltered

• Confident

• Team Oriented

• Achieving

• Pressured

• Conventional

The Digital Generation: Challenges

Learning Style• Surface Functioning

• Difficult to Teach

• Research by “Surf”

• Weak Critical Thinking Skills

• Naïve Beliefs Regarding Intellectual Property

• Technology Preferences Have Little Institutional Context

Lifestyle• Self-focused

• Artificial Self-esteem

• Anything is Possible Orientation

• Cynical

• Life by Lottery

• “Yeah Right” Attitude

Students who were satisfied by generation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 55%

38%

26%

Boomer1946-1964

n=328

Generation X1965-1980

n=815

Millennial1981-1994

n=346

Per

cent

Better able to integrate technology into their learning

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Per

cent

67%

48%

34%

Boomer1946-1964

n=328

Generation X1965-1980

n=815

Millennial1981-1994

n=346

Because of the web I changed my approach to learning

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cent

51%

37%

23%

Boomer1946-1964

n=328

Generation X1965-1980

n=815

Millennial1981-1994

n=346

Success rates by generation and course level

50

60

70

80

90

100

LowerUndergrad

UpperUndergrad

Graduate

Baby BoomerGen XMillennial

Per

cent 83%

81%75%

93% 91% 90%

96% 94% 95%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Face-to-Face Equal Mix Web

Per

cent

Classroom modality preferred by generations

Baby BoomerGen XMillennial

p = .000; n=1,149

26% 24%

39%

15%11%

22%

59% 65%

40%

Student Behavior Types

Research on reactive behavior patterns

• Theory of William A. Long, University of Mississippi

• Ambivalence brings out behavior patterns

• Provides a lens for how “types” react to different teaching styles

Resources

• Personality

• Emotional maturity

• Sophistication level

• Level of intellect

• Educational level

• Character development

A description of Long behavior types

• Aggressive Independent• high energy• action-oriented• not concerned with approval• speaks out freely• gets into confrontational

situations• Passive Independent

• low energy• not concerned with approval• prefers to work alone• resists pressure from authority

• Aggressive Dependent• high energy• action-oriented• concerned with approval• rarely expresses negative feelings• performs at or above ability

• Passive Dependent• low energy• concerned with approval• highly sensitive to the feelings of

others• very compliant

A description of Long behavior traits

• Phobic

• exaggerated fears of things

• often feels anxious

• often sees the negative side

• doesn’t take risks

• Compulsive

• highly organized

• neat, methodical worker

• perfectionist

• strongly motivated to finish tasks

• Impulsive• explosive• quick-tempered• acts without thinking• frank• short attention span

• Hysteric• dramatic and emotional• more social than academic• artistic or creative• tends to overreact

Students who were very satisfied with blended learning Long type

05

1015202530354045

AggressiveIndependent

PassiveIndependent

AggressiveDependent

PassiveDependent

39%

32% 33%

(N = 168) (N = 204) (N = 458)

24%

(N = 122)

Changed Approach to Learning in Online Class by Long Type

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

AggressiveIndependent

n=120

40%

34%37%

25%

PassiveIndependent

n=83

AggressiveDependent

n=285

PassiveDependent

n=28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Withdrawing Students Who Indicated That They Would Take Another Online Course (by Long type)

67%

32%

0%

50%

AggressiveIndependent

PassiveIndependent

AggressiveDependent

PassiveDependent

N=55

Faculty Results

A lot more time

Time to develop course as compared with a comparable face-to-face section

Morework

Equalto or

less than Wn=56

MN=43

Modality

A little more time

About the sameA little less timeA lot less time

2%

52%

21%

5%

77%

43%

2%

A lot more time

Time in weekly course administration activities as compared with a comparable face-to-face section

Morework

Equalto or

less than Wn=55

MN=42

Modality

A little more time

About the sameA little less timeA lot less time

4%

43%

15% 19%

60%

38%20%

Amount of interaction in Web classes compared to comparable F2F sections

Moreinteraction

Equalto or

less thanW

n=55M

N=40

Modality

13%

45%

16%

15%

62%

30%

2%7%

8%3%

IncreasedSomewhatincreasedAbout the sameSomewhatdecreased

Decreased

Quality of interaction in Web classes compared to comparable F2F sections

Betterinteraction

Equalto or

less thanW

n=55M

N=43

Modality

22%

30%

33%

19%

35%

37%

9%2%

14%

IncreasedSomewhatincreasedAbout the sameSomewhatdecreased

Decreased

Very satisfied

Faculty satisfaction compared with a comparable face-to-face section

Positive

Neutralor

negativeW

n=55M

N=43F2F

N=64

Modality

SatisfiedNeutralUnsatisfied

Very unsatisfied

6%

44%

44%

5%

58%

5%

49%

38%

38%

7%

7%

Relationships of faculty satisfaction with class interaction and workload (TAU-b)

W M(n=53) (n=38)

Amount of interaction .39** .34*

Quality of interaction .43** .51**

Time to develop .16 .09

Time to administer .10 .01

Time to deliver .06 .10

*p<.05; ** p<.01

Student Ratings

Facilitation of learning

Communication of ideas

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Then...

The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .93 &

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

If...

A decision rule based on student evaluation responses and the probability of faculty receiving an overall rating of Excellent

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

Overall If Rule 1College % Excellent % Excellent

Arts & Sciences 41.6 92.4Business 34.9 90.9

Education 56.8 94.8Engineering 36.2 91.3

H&PA 46.1 93.9

(N=441,758) (N=147,544)

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

F2F 42.0 92.2E 44.0 92.3M 40.6 92.0W 55.4 92.7ITV 20.9 86.7

Course Overall If Rule 1Modality % Excellent % Excellent

N=709,285 N=235,745

Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness

For more information contact:

Dr. Chuck Dziuban(407) 823-5478

dziuban@mail.ucf.edu

Dr. Patsy Moskal(407) 823-0283

pdmoskal@mail.ucf.edu

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